5 Ways to Prevent the Next Migrant Caravan

 

Written by Royce Murray
Just two weeks ahead of the midterm elections, much attention is being placed on a migrant caravan of Central Americans making their way north through Mexico. Now reported to include more than 7,000 people, the mostly Honduran group is seeking protection from pervasive violence at home. Even though the southern border is more secure than ever and the United States has well-established processes for handling asylum applicants, there are concrete ways to help prevent future caravans from migrating en masse. 


1. Address Root Causes of Central America’s Instability

We first need to take an honest look at why migrants from the Northern Triangle of Central America flee. People must have profound and imminent reasons to pick up their lives and leave their homes to journey to a faraway country. For many Hondurans, leaving was not a choice; their safety was at risk and their lives and the lives of their children were on the line. Rather than threatening to cut off the foreign assistance that helps stabilize these countries, the United States has a national interest in addressing root causes of violence and instability in the region so people are able to thrive at home. 


2. Improve Oversight and Accountability of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

Migrants travel together because there is safety in numbers. The journey is a perilous one, fraught with threats from opportunistic gangs and smugglers as well as the harsh conditions of the trek. When migrants travel alone, they place themselves at greater risk of harm and the chance that they will be mistreated—either physically or procedurally—at the U.S. border. CBP officials have a well-documented history of turning back asylum seekers at ports of entry and subjecting them to harsh treatment while in custody. Improving oversight and accountability for CBP will help ensure that our border processing remains safe and orderly. 


3. Help Mexico Improve Their Asylum System

Central American asylum seekers need more viable options for protection in the region. The United States has a vested interest in further strengthening the Mexican asylum system so that it can better accommodate larger numbers of asylum applications and afford meaningful protection to those at risk. Collaborating with our southern neighbor, rather than threatening them, is far more likely to achieve a successful and viable partnership to address this regional migration issue. 


4. Increase Refugee Admissions

If we don’t want large groups of people to take dangerous journeys in order to seek protection, we must expand U.S. refugee processing for the Central American region. Rather than slashing refugee allocations to record-low numbers, we should increase avenues to apply for protection from abroad. In fiscal year 2018, only 955 refugees were admitted from all of Latin America and the Caribbean and minimal refugee processing is expected to be conducted in the coming year. 


5. Resume In-Country Refugee Processing for Central American Children

Finally, children are at particular risk of violence in places like Honduras where gangs target teens for recruitment or threaten parents with harm to their children if they don’t agree to extortion demands. We should resume in-country processing for unaccompanied children (the “Central American Minors” or “CAM” program) in Central America and ensure that the program can adjudicate applications expeditiously, so children have the option of seeking safety within their home country. 

There is no evidence that this caravan of migrants poses any threat to the safety and well-being of the United States. We can, however, avoid large movements like this if we supplement existing avenues to apply for asylum by providing safe and orderly alternatives to those in need of protection. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3932-how-to-prevent-the-next-caravan-of-migrants.html

New Court Filing Highlights the Government’s Official “Turnback Policy” for Asylum Seekers

Written by Karolina Walters

Eight new asylum seekers joined a lawsuit last week that challenges U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials’ widespread and well-documented practice of turning back asylum seekers at U.S. ports of entry (POE) along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The plaintiffs also amended the complaint in the lawsuit with new facts documenting an official “Turnback Policy” that formalizes CBP’s unlawful practice. Each new plaintiff has been subjected to the Turnback Policy, fears for his or her safety in Mexico, and wishes to seek asylum in the United States. 

As explained in the new filing, under the Turnback Policy, CBP officials assert an unverified “lack of capacity” and then utilize a variety of methods to prevent and delay asylum seekers from reaching ports of entry and making their asylum claims. These methods include coordinating with Mexican immigration authorities or other third parties to implement a “metering” or waitlist system; instructing asylum seekers to wait on the bridge, in the pre-inspection area, or at a shelter in Mexico until there is adequate space at the port of entry; or simply telling asylum seekers that they cannot be processed because the port of entry is “full” or “at capacity.” 

Plaintiffs reference internal CBP documents showing that the Turnback Policy existed as early as May 2016. However, high-level officials in the Trump administration confirmed the existence of the policy, and escalated it, in the spring of 2018 in reaction to news that a large group of asylum seekers, referred to as a “caravan,” sought to present themselves at the San Ysidro point of entry in California. 

Notably, the filing cites DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen’s May 2018 statement confirming that the government was “metering” asylum seekers and referring to the asylum process as a “loophole” that must be fixed. Recently, a report by DHS’ Office of the Inspector General also confirmed the use of “metering.” 

Plaintiffs’ allege that CBP officials reinforce the sanctioned Turnback Policy with the widespread practices documented in the original complaint, including misrepresentations about the U.S. asylum process, threats, abuse and physical force, coercion, outright denials of access, and physically obstructing access to POEs. Together, the resulting restriction of access to the asylum process, through outright denials and unreasonable delays, puts asylum seekers at imminent risk of grave harm or deportation. Such denial of access to the U.S. asylum process violates both U.S. and international law. 

The lawsuit is filed as a class action, meaning that the individual plaintiffs seek to represent other, unnamed asylum seekers who seek or will seek to claim asylum at a point of entry and are similarly denied access. Thus, this lawsuit may have lasting impact on how our government will treat those seeking protection at our borders. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3928-Turnback-Policy-for-Asylum-Seekers-in-United-States.html

It Is Legal to Seek Asylum

Written by Royce Murray

As thousands of asylum-seeking parents were separated from their children in recent months, the Trump administration actively portrayed them as law breakers who must be prosecuted and punished for coming to the United States. Left out of the narrative is one well-established fact: it is legal to seek asylum.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, which governs our nation’s immigration law, makes clear that anyone arriving at the U.S. border or within the United States is permitted to apply for protection. U.S. law embraces both international and domestic legal obligations not to return any person to a place where they face persecution on account of one of several protected grounds.

Most everyone can apply for asylum, and where narrow exceptions apply, those individuals can apply for other forms of protection including withholding of removal or relief for those at risk of torture.

For those able to reach the U.S. border, many have been unlawfully turned away by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials who have told migrants that ports of entry are closed or that the U.S. no longer welcomes asylum seekers, at least from certain countries, among other justifications. Faced with no alternatives, many asylum seekers present themselves to Border Patrol between the ports of entry in order to seek protection. Following the Attorney General’s “zero tolerance” policy of prosecuting everyone apprehended between the ports of entry, many asylum-seeking parents were separated from their children for months so they could be prosecuted for entry-related crimes before being given a chance to ask for protection.

Confusion is triggered, however, by the existence of federal criminal offenses for unlawful entry (a misdemeanor) or unlawful reentry to the United States after having been deported or ordered removed (a felony). While there are many concerns with entry-related prosecutions, it is particularly problematic when asylum seekers are prosecuted while trying to seek protection.

People fleeing life or death situations cannot often wait in their home countries to secure a visa or even use their true identity documents to depart their country and travel onward. Moreover, there is no way to apply for asylum from outside of the United States; overseas refugee processing is only available to select populations in specific locations and in very small numbers. Only 1,500 refugees may be admitted from all of Latin America and the Caribbean in fiscal year 2018; a mere 126 refugees from that region had been admitted as of June 2018.

To be clear, asylum seekers have a right to apply for asylum, not to be granted asylum. Once an individual tells a DHS official after being stopped at the border that they are afraid, asylum seekers must be processed and referred to asylum officers who assess an asylum seeker’s claims. Enforcement officers, such as CBP officers or Border Patrol agents, are not allowed to make these determinations.

The Refugee Convention also makes clear that countries are precluded from penalizing individuals requesting protection from persecution or torture in their country of origin. Indeed, in 2015 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General noted that the prosecution of those “who express fear of persecution or return to their home countries” was “inconsistent with and may violate U.S. treaty obligations.”

The United States must stop its criminalization of asylum seekers. Rather than treating them as law breakers, our country must adhere to its legal obligations to afford protections to those in harm’s way.

 

Source: www. immigrationimpact.com  

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3852-It-Is-Legal-to-Seek-Asylum.html

Residents on Both Sides of the Border Try to Help Asylum Seekers Illegally Turned Away by U.S. Gov’t

Under President Trump’s new “zero tolerance” policy, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has called for people seeking asylum to follow the law and go to official ports of entry to request help. But asylum seekers at international bridges across the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas have been blocked by Border Patrol agents who say they are unable to process them. 

In some cases, asylum seekers—including women and young children—have been told to wait for days and even weeks on international bridges over the border, often in extreme heat. Residents on both sides of the border have responded by bringing food, water and clothing to people as they wait to be processed. Democracy Now! producer Renée Feltz followed some of them as they delivered aid, and interviewed Jennifer Harbury, a human rights lawyer who has lived in the Rio Grande Valley for over 40 years, about the significance of the United States rejecting legal requests by asylum seekers, detaining them at length, and in some cases deporting them after separating them from their children. 

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Under President Trump’s new “zero tolerance” policy, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has called for people seeking asylum to follow the law and go to official ports of entry to request help. But asylum seekers at international bridges across the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas have been blocked by Border Patrol agents who say they are unable to process them. In same cases, asylum seekers, including women and young children, have been told to wait for days, and even weeks, on international bridges over the border, often in extreme heat. 

AMY GOODMAN: Residents on both sides of the border have responded by bringing food and water and clothing to people as they wait to be processed. Democracy Now!’s Renée Feltz followed them as they dropped off donations Sunday at one of the busiest ports of entry in the Rio Grande Valley. 

NAYELLY BARRIOS: My name is Nayelly Barrios. We are on the bridge that connects Reynosa to Hidalgo, Mexico to the U.S. We are right in the middle point of the bridge, right over the river, the Rio Grande river. Behind me are—I believe it’s three Border Patrol agents, asking for individuals’—to glance at individuals’ documentation. They’re not scanning them or anything. They don’t have any of that machinery out here. They just have—they’re just checking to see that they have the documents. Border Patrol agents usually do not stand at that point. 

So, I was born in Reynosa, and I’ve lived in the U.S. most of my life. I’m a U.S. citizen now. I first heard about the individuals that were stranded on Sunday. And the main reason is, I just thought, “Imagine if I were there, myself, stranded on a bridge, day and night, with very few resources, just whatever I brought on me, you know, while I made the trip.” 

So, this one time, on Wednesday, we were getting ready to head out. We had been on the bridge for an hour and a half, distributing, talking to the people, asking them specifically what some of them might need, and we write it down. And there was this—we were about to head out, and one of the ladies who helps out there—she lives in Reynosa—and she told us, “Go look at that—go talk to that woman that’s standing.” She was about six yards away from the main group of asylum seekers, and she was just standing there with a little girl. And she looked really sad and confused and lost. And so, you know, we went to go ask her, “Are you here to seek asylum?” Because they’re not letting people cross, we just wanted to explain to her that it was best for her, instead of standing there, to go join the group. And she was not—she was not responsive. She was just looking at us like “I don’t want to talk to you.” I had never seen such a terrified look on someone. It was like she was defenseless and just terrified and—

UNIDENTIFIED: Holding onto her daughter. 

NAYELLY BARRIOS: She was holding onto her kid, yes. And the kid looked about 6, maybe 7. 

UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah. 

NAYELLY BARRIOS: She was looking around like—

UNIDENTIFIED: “Can I trust you?” 

NAYELLY BARRIOS: Yes. She didn’t know if she could trust us. She did not want to open up. And I told her, “You look tired. You must be very tired.” I told her—all in Spanish, of course. I told her, “I don’t know what you must have been through, but you can rest over here. We’ve got some food. We’ve got water, clothes for your kid, as well. Come join the group, until it’s your turn. And we’ll explain to you, you know, what’s been happening here.” And so, it took a while, and then I like gently put my arm on her—on her shoulder, like to try and guide her, like to tell her like it’s fine. So then she started letting her guard down a little bit. And as she started following me to where the group was, she started crying. It’s like she finally let her guard down and—

UNIDENTIFIED: Felt relief. 

NAYELLY BARRIOS: I think she felt—I feel like it was relief, yeah. 

UNIDENTIFIED: Mm-hmm, looked like it. 

NAYELLY BARRIOS: And then, once I got her to the group, and the—one of the other volunteers that was there, from Reynosa, the woman that I was mentioning, she started talking to her. And then the girl just—well, the woman, she looked so young, with her little girl—just started crying, like more all-out crying. Yeah, I feel like it was relief that she started feeling, that, “Finally, I’m not by myself. Somebody’s taking me in,” and maybe also a little bit scared that “Why wasn’t it that easy for me to just go in and ask for asylum? Why am I having to wait in this line with all these people?” She probably really wasn’t expecting that. 

AMY GOODMAN: That was Nayelly Barrios at the port of entry, or international bridge, that connects Reynosa, Mexico, where she was born, to McAllen, Texas, where she lives nearby as a U.S. citizen. 

And now we’re going to turn to another person Renée Feltz interviewed while in South Texas, Jennifer Harbury, a human rights lawyer who has lived in the Rio Grande Valley for over 40 years. Her husband, Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, was a Mayan comandante and guerrilla who was disappeared after he was captured by the Guatemalan army in the 1980s. She later found there was U.S. involvement in the cover-up about her husband’s murder and torture. 

JENNIFER HARBURY: My name is Jennifer Harbury. I’m a human rights attorney and also a human rights activist, and have been for many years. I think most of you know I was involved in Guatemala during the dirty wars and during the genocidal campaign in the '80s and lost my husband there. I've stayed very close to friends all across Central America, and I understand why they’re fleeing northwards. It’s very clear, and it’s very tragic. And to see people being turned away here or punished for asking for asylum really breaks my heart. My father was 11 when he arrived at Ellis Island fleeing Hitler. I don’t want to think what would have happened if those children had been torn away from their parents at that point in time. They were terrified. They were alone. They were totally dependent on their parents. It’s just—it’s a very ugly chapter of U.S. history right now. 

Let’s say it’s a three-pronged attack on refugees—not on cartel people. Cartel people have millions and millions of dollars. If they want to get into the United States, they can buy the passport. They can buy the police officer. They can buy a boat and an airplane. They don’t need to send scrawny, terrified refugees to swim the river and nearly drown, you know, to do their dirty work for them. They don’t need to do that. They’re way past it. So, the war that we’ve declared is on the victims of the cartels: the moms with babies, the 15-year-olds that are running from trafficking, the boy that could either work with the cartels or die and whose parents were killed in retaliation when he fled—those kinds of people. We’re supposed to be helping them. 

Under U.S. law, you are permitted to come to the U.S. port of entry—that’s the checkpoint at the border—and say, “I’m in danger in my home country. I need to apply for political asylum.” You then get sent for a credible fear interview to see if that story is reasonable or not. And if it is, you get sent to detention to await your trial on your asylum process. Until recently, anybody in that category, if they had lots of U.S. citizen relatives and plenty of ID and stuff, they were released on parole, just as someone that faces a criminal charge would be released on bond. It’s normal, and it’s in ICE’s own policy. They have to obey that. 

But as of last year, first they started out by trying to push everyone away from the border, which is totally illegal. The legal way to apply for asylum is to go to the border. Then they tried to sort of break their spirit by keeping them in prison-like conditions for a year and a half or two years. And those conditions in the detention centers are horrific. 

What started even more recently, though, is, if people decide, “Maybe I don’t want to go that route. I’ll swim the river,” it’s extremely dangerous. You have to pay a huge fee for crossing the river, to the cartels. And if they don’t like you or think you’d be a good trafficking person, you could go down. Children drown all the time crossing the river, and adults and children die all the time crossing the desert here, trying to get out of southern Texas. If none of that happens, they’re probably going to get caught. It’s hard to run with kids. And what you’ve been seeing in the paper is happening: They take your children away, prosecute you for trying to save your kid’s life, and send you home without your kid. 

Now, they’re telling them to sit on the bridge. It’s a hundred degrees out. There was a young 15-year-old girl, who was 7 months pregnant, out there for three days and three nights. Many small children are on the bridge for up to 10 days at a time at the Reynosa entry. Just going north a little ways, to Miguel Alemán-Roma bridge, it’s more remote, and we didn’t realize people were there. I went to speak with them a few days ago. They had been out there for 16 days in 100-degree heat, camping out. And there was a 3-month-old baby there, who was becoming ill. A kindly Mexican nurse had come forward to assist the child. That’s what’s keeping all of these people alive on the bridge, is all of us. 

Can they go back to Reynosa to use the bathrooms or get dinner or sleep in a little motel? No. Immigrants right now are the number-one target for the cartels in Reynosa. So, anyone deported or anyone obviously coming north, if they see you coming back across the bridge with babies, you will be kidnapped. They have figured out that it’s a great, booming business, in fact, to grab anyone being sent back. And the reason is they know that they will have someone up north who cares about them. They may be totally destitute, but they’ll go find the $10,000. 

Now what we’re seeing is they make them sit on the bridge in the hopes that they’ll just voluntarily go back. But, the last few days, they’ve started telling people, “You’re not allowed on the bridge at all. Go back.” Sending any refugee back to a place of danger, it’s a violation of international law, which I’m sure President Trump doesn’t care about at all. But it’s also a violation of U.S. law, and it has been for many years. We’re breaking the law. We’re ignoring the cartels. And we’re punishing the hell out of the victims. How that makes us great, I couldn’t tell you. 

AMY GOODMAN: That was Jennifer Harbury, human rights lawyer, who’s lived in the Rio Grande Valley for over 40 years, interviewed by Democracy Now!'s Renée Feltz. When we come back, we'll look at Trump administration’s reported plans to build tent cities on military bases near the U.S.-Mexico border to accommodate the increasing numbers of migrant children being held. Stay with us. 

 

 

Publication Date: June 18 de 2018
Source: https://www.democracynow.org  

Asylum Seeker Files Lawsuit After CBP Officers Falsify Paperwork And Then Deport Him

Written by Kristin Macleod-Ball 

Time and time again, immigrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border are never given a meaningful opportunity by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers to explain why they fear returning to their country of origin. All too often CBP officers fail to follow the rules designed to protect asylum seekers at the border, and they sometimes insert untrue and nonsensical information into their deportation paperwork. 

An immigrant who was forced through a fast-track deportation at the border involving these unlawful practices sued CBP on Thursday. His deportation was based on paperwork that included fabricated answers, and he was never given the opportunity to apply for asylum. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, seeks to hold CBP accountable for its negligence and unlawful practices. 

José Crespo Cagnant, a Mexican immigrant who has lived in the United States with his U.S.-citizen partner for more than a decade, was arrested by CBP agents after entering the United States in 2012. Although he was afraid of persecution in Mexico based on his sexual orientation, Crespo was rushed through an expedited deportation process by a Border Patrol agent who couldn’t communicate in Spanish. 

The agent never gave Crespo an opportunity to explain whether he was afraid of returning to Mexico. They also made up inaccurate information about Crespo’s reasons for coming to the United States and his family history. The agent included that fabricated information in the deportation paperwork, pretending that Crespo had provided it. As a result, Crespo was quickly deported without ever getting the opportunity to speak to an asylum officer, which is required by law. 

Still fearful of remaining in Mexico, Crespo eventually returned to his partner—now husband—and sought to legalize his status. As a result, he was arrested and criminally charged with reentering the United States after deportation. 

A federal district court judge later dismissed the criminal case against Crespo, finding that the agent who deported him did not testify credibly about his ability to communicate in Spanish and whether he meaningfully informed Crespo of the charges against him. 

Despite this finding, the Border Patrol agent remains on the job. 

Sadly, these abuses are not unique. In interviews with Mexican immigrants in 2016 and 2017, more than half of those deported from the border reported that they were never asked if they feared return, were not allowed to read their deportation documents before being forced to sign them, or both. 

With this case, Crespo seeks to hold ensure CBP is liable for its officers’ fabrication of evidence and unlawful treatment of asylum seekers. As advocates have documented , CBP rarely takes any action in response to even the most serious complaints of abuse by its officers. Those officers make life-or-death decisions when they turn away individuals seeking protection in the United States from persecution and torture, and their actions in cases like Crespo’s must not go unchecked. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3819-Asylum-seekers-file-suit-against-CPB.html

The Perils of Expedited Removal How Fast-Track Deportations Jeopardize Asylum Seekers Part II

By Kathryn Shepherd and Royce Bernstein Murray

“I was interviewed by a male asylum officer. He asked me if I wanted to be interviewed by a female officer and I said that I had no preference. At that moment I felt uncomfortable telling the officer that I didn’t want to be interviewed by him. I had been raped in Guatemala and I could not share that entire story with a male officer. But I didn’t feel like I could tell him that I wanted to change officials. If I had a female officer I might have been able to tell her my full story. I felt fear and shame at the interview. I also feared that my husband could find out that I had been raped if I had said it. I can’t tell my husband because he would reject me and blame me. In my culture, if a man does improper things to a woman, most of the time the woman is blamed. My people think that if a man “crossed the line” it is because the woman allowed him to. In the Mam culture, men are the ones who rule and women have to obey their fathers and husbands.” 

These are the words of Valeria, a Guatemalan asylum seeker, who described the difficulty she had sharing critical aspects of her claim to the asylum officer during her screening interview. Valeria fled Guatemala with Idalia, her then 7-year-old daughter, after years of extreme physical violence at the hands of Valeria’s father, rape by her ex-partner, and, more recently, a brutal gang rape by members of a transnational criminal organization (TCO). 

Valeria and Idalia sought asylum in the United States, but were detained and placed in the expedited removal process. They were required to undergo the credible fear interview process—the first step for asylum seekers in fast-track removal processes—before being released from detention and permitted to continue fighting their case in immigration court. During those weeks in custody, the U.S. government expected Valeria to quickly navigate a complex asylum system in an atmosphere that frequently impedes a fair hearing. Valeria was required to overcome the challenges of speaking a rare language and articulating a traumatic story before she could pursue her claim for asylum in a full merits hearing with an immigration judge. 

In years past, Valeria and Idalia might have been given the chance to make their case directly to an immigration judge, providing ample time to seek legal counsel and prepare to tell their stories fully. However, protection for asylum-seeking families like Valeria’s has been more difficult to access since 2014. In response to the dramatic rise in Central American families arriving at the southwest border to seek asylum, the government sought to stem the number of asylum claims by reducing the time and opportunity available to make a claim for asylum. This has been accomplished largely by placing many of these families in remote detention facilities while subjecting them to fast-track deportation processes. These processes involve remarkably complex procedures designed to prevent the unlawful deportation of asylum seekers, yet in practice they create additional barriers for many families. 

Given that very few asylum-seeking families speak English, most have experienced significant trauma in their countries or during their journeys north, and they have no right to government-appointed legal counsel, the bureaucratic hurdles can be insurmountable. The added stress of detention, particularly detention of children, further complicates most mothers’ ability to remain focused on presenting a clear case for asylum. Nuanced legal standards applied by government officials asking difficult questions about a family’s worst fears and experiences threaten to transform what is meant to be merely a preliminary screening process into a full-blown, high-stakes asylum interview. 

For many families, the physical presence of pro bono legal counsel at family detention facilities has made all the difference in their opportunity to seek asylum. But even for those who successfully navigate the process with the help of legal counsel, the challenges are extraordinary. Identifying and categorizing these challenges not only illustrates the high barriers to accessing the asylum system and immigration court, but also demonstrates why attorneys are an essential part of the process. To understand these interconnected issues, the authors drew from thousands of case files of families detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in (STFRC) in Dilley, Texas—the country’s largest family detention center—to identify some of those who experienced challenges in their pursuit of protection. Although many of the families whose stories are highlighted in this report were ultimately able to forestall immediate deportation and will have their asylum cases heard by an immigration judge, in all of the cases the presence of legal counsel enabled the families to overcome the multiple challenges they faced. These accounts from women and children provide a window into how these challenges plague all asylum seekers subjected to fast-track deportations while held in detention facilities throughout the country. 


U.S. “Expedited Removal” Policy and Asylum Seekers at the Border 

Beginning in the spring of 2014, the United States saw a dramatic uptick in arrivals of Central American mothers with children, as well as unaccompanied children, at the southern border in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. While there is always a confluence of factors that drive a wave of migration at any one time, epidemic levels of violence and impunity in the Northern Triangle of Central America (comprising El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) unmistakably drove these vulnerable groups to flee their countries in search of protection. The murder rates in these countries are among the highest in the world. In 2016, El Salvador was the most violent nation in the Americas, while the murder rates in Honduras and Guatemala were among the five highest in the hemisphere. 

Although most victims of murder in these countries are men, there is acute violence against women. In 2012, El Salvador and Guatemala were ranked first and third, respectively, as having the highest murder rates for women in the world. Gang activity is a major cause of the violence that plagues the region. Teenage boys are targeted for gang recruitment under threat of death, while women and girls are forced to become “gang girlfriends” and the “property” of gang members or face a similar fate. These threats are often compounded by rampant domestic violence and threats of political persecution that jeopardize the well-being and stability of many families fleeing the Northern Triangle and parts of the Caribbean. 

The migration routes from many countries to the United States are well-trod; for decades asylum seekers and migrants have made the journey to flee civil wars, poverty, and environmental disasters. Many who are fleeing Central America turn to the United States as a strong option for safe haven, given family and community ties. Most who fled in recent years knew full well the risks and perils they would face on the journey—traffickers, cartels, and bandits prey on migrants along the way— but left anyway. The search for safety was a necessity and remaining at home was no longer an option. 

When more asylum-seeking families arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2014, the U.S. government quickly ramped up capacity to detain arriving families with the creation of large detention facilities in Artesia, New Mexico (closed in December 2014); Karnes City, Texas; and Dilley, Texas. Prior to this, only a small residential facility in Berks County, Pennsylvania, was in operation. By the spring of 2015, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had approximately 3,300 beds and cribs to detain mothers and their minor children, who ranged from newborns to near 18-year-olds. 

Most families placed in detention are in a fast-track deportation process called “expedited removal.” A person subject to expedited removal (which, under current U.S. policy, may include those apprehended within 100 miles of a U.S. land border and within 14 days of entry) can be immediately ordered deported by an immigration officer without ever seeing an immigration judge. Those who tell a DHS official that they are afraid to return to their home countries are given screening interviews with an asylum officer to see if they have a credible fear of persecution. If so, they are entitled to a full asylum hearing before an immigration judge. If not, they face swift deportation unless they seek review of the negative determination by an immigration judge, which is generally cursory. 

This process, while complex, is supposed to ensure asylum seekers are not unlawfully deported to a country where they could face grave harm or death. In practice, however, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers do not always adequately screen migrants or ask if they fear return to their home countries. At times agents ignore expressions of fear and summarily deport asylum seekers. Less than 20 percent of the people ordered removed ever see an in immigration judge due to CBP’s use of summary removal processes. 
 
Source: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3617-Deportations-Jeopardize-Asylum-Seekers-Part-II.html

How Fast-Track Deportations Jeopardize Asylum Seekers

By Kathryn Shepherd and Royce Bernstein Murray

This report shows through the use of original testimony that the government’s reliance on “fast-track” deportation methods, such as expedited removal, in conjunction with detention often results in disadvantaging one of the most vulnerable groups of non-citizens currently in the U.S. immigration system: women and their children held in detention centers in rural, isolated locations in Texas and Pennsylvania. 

Accounts from women and children detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, the country’s largest family detention center, illustrate the many obstacles a detained asylum seeker must overcome in order to obtain a meaningful day in court. The authors drew from a database of thousands of case files to identify families who experienced one or more of the challenges outlined in this paper. 

Although many of the families whose stories are highlighted in this report were ultimately able to forestall immediate deportation with the assistance of legal counsel, all of them faced serious obstacles accessing the asylum process. Detained asylum seekers encounter numerous challenges, including the following problems detailed in this report. 

• High Incidence of Psychological Trauma among Detainees
  Many of the asylum-seeking women and children who are detained in Dilley experience psychological trauma as a result of their past persecution or fear of future persecution. This trauma is compounded by the experience of detention, the limited access to medical and psychological services in the detention center, and other policies outlined below.
• Separation of Family Members after Arriving at the Border
  Current government policy mandates that women must be separated from their spouses, adult children, parents, siblings, and other family members before they are transferred to the detention center in Dilley, Texas. The emotional impact of family separation – and the possibility that a separated family member with the same claim for relief may be deported – may have a profound effect on the ability of a woman or child to testify during their fear interview with the asylum office or before the immigration court.
• Medical Conditions Adversely Impact the Ability to Pursue Protection
  The women and children who are transferred to the detention center in Dilley suffer from a range of medical conditions. The prevalence of medical conditions may affect a worried mother’s ability to tell her story during her interview if her child is ill, or the sickness itself could affect a child or woman’s ability to articulate her story.
• Limited Access to Language Services
  While the majority of families who are transferred to the detention center in Dilley speak Spanish, many do not. The languages spoken within the walls of the detention center in Dilley are diverse. Access to interpretation services is limited, which may present problems for women and children attempting to seek help at the medical clinic, ask questions about their legal cases, and, most importantly, undergo fear interviews with the asylum office or hearings with the immigration court.
• Complexity of the Legal Standard Applicable to Credible Fear Screenings
  The immigration system is notoriously complicated, and the credible fear screening process is no exception. The legal standards to which asylum seekers are held are nuanced and complex, even for well-trained attorneys, let alone lay persons. Many of the factors outlined in this paper, including the prevalence of trauma and medical conditions, may further impede a person’s ability to understand the legal process and articulate a claim for protection.
• Procedural Defects in the Credible Fear Interview Process
  The credible fear interview process is potentially rife with procedural errors. Asylum officers are required to conduct the interview in compliance with printed guidance and law, but occasionally fail to do so. For example, officers must ensure that an asylum seeker feels comfortable, ask sufficient follow up questions to reveal critical information in the person’s case, and evaluate a parent’s claim for protection separately from the child’s (and vice versa). However, an officer may not develop the rapport with the mother or child that is needed to fulfill these obligations. Such procedural pitfalls, and many others, may adversely affect the outcome of an asylum seeker’s claim.

While the voices in this report are predominantly of asylum-seeking mothers and their children from Central America and the surrounding region, the obstacles this population faces illustrate the high risk of error in asylum screenings for all noncitizens who are held in detention facilities around the country during their fast-track deportation proceedings. 

Finally, the report looks at the critical role attorneys play in the cases of those who fail to pass their fear interview in the first instance due to one or several of the challenges highlighted above. The case stories illustrate how these pitfalls place families at risk of being returned to the very countries where they fear persecution.

Source: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org 
http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3613-Deportations-Jeopardize-Asylum-Seekers.html