USCIS Processing Delays To Be Investigated By Government Accountability Office

Written by Tory Johnson

Applications for permanent residence and other immigration benefits are taking longer than ever to process.U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency responsible for adjudicating these applications, has a backlog at “crisis levels.”

While USCIS processing delays have increasingly been a problem, the backlog is reaching new highs under the Trump administration. 

But for the first time in over a decade, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has agreed to look into the problem. In a letter to members of Congress, the GAO said it plans to begin the study in about five months. 

This could bring important information to light and help correct a problem that needlessly hurts immigrants, their families, and employers with long waits and uncertain futures. 

The GAO announcement comes in the wake of two forceful letters from elected officials. A bipartisan group of senators called on USCIS to account for the lengthy backlog and waiting times that constituents and USCIS customers experience. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and other members of Congress wrote a letter to the GAO requesting the investigation, seeking “recommendations on how the agency can best meet its statutory mission of being a service-oriented agency that efficiently processes immigration-related applications and petitions.” 

Such recommendations are sorely needed. The average processing time for all application types is up 46 percent since Fiscal Year (FY) 2016. These increasing delays persist even when fewer new applications are being submitted. 

Although the agency points to naturalization cases to demonstrate an increase in approved applications, this isn’t the full picture. It’s true that USCIS processed 18 percent more naturalization applications in FY 2018 compared to FY 2014, but in that time more applications came in and the backlog grew.

USCIS also significantly increased its fees to cover the costs of application processing. With higher fees and more applicants, USCIS should be adjudicating cases more efficiently—not at the same rate as earlier years when less money was available to them. 

To date, USCIS has not addressed nor taken responsibility for the backlog crisis. And there is evidence that the agency’s own practices and policies contribute to longer processing times. For example, USCIS openly acknowledged that its expanded in-person interview requirement exacerbated these delays. 

The impact of these delays should not be taken lightly. Senators articulated the consequences of the backlog in their letter to USCIS: 

“The delays in employment authorization applications have led to disruptions in American businesses. many of which depend on employees who need work authorization to carry out their functions. When an employee experiences an unexpected processing delay in applying for and renewing employment authorization it can destabilize a business and leave mission-critical roles unfilled.” 

Investigating USCIS inner-workings could shed much-needed light on the impact of policies and practices—whether implemented under the current administration or in years prior. The GAO has the ability to examine and expose any connections between USCIS policies, lengthy processing times, and the growing backlog of applications. 

The investigation may be able to affect positive change. In 2005, the GAO examined the then-backlog at USCIS. The agency implemented all four recommendations from that investigation and concluding report. 

While the GAO is not expected to begin its work until late in the year—and likely won’t issue a report until the second half of 2020—its announcement could spark positive change in the interim. It is also a win for transparency, recognizing the importance of keeping USCIS accountable to its founding mission and oversight from Congress. As the investigation gets underway, it could make important data and documents public, and encourage USCIS to more rigorously consider the implications of recent and possible policy changes. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4231-USCIS-Processing-Delays-to-be-Investigated-by-GAO.html

Serving Our Country Is No Longer A Way For Immigrant Soldiers To Gain Citizenship

Written by Guillermo Cantor

Immigrant soldiers in the U.S. military often use their service as a catalyst to apply for and gain citizenship. Traditionally, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) honored that service with a fast-tracked pathway to naturalization—granting soldiers citizenship to a country they already risked their lives for seemed beyond fair.

But that has recently changed. New USCIS data shows that the numbers of immigrant soldiers applying for and earning citizenship have plummeted. In total, military naturalizations have dropped 65 percent since the Trump administration created stricter policies for immigrant service members. 

In October 2017, the President Trump directed Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to make policy changes that added additional barriers for non-citizen service members. The new policies reversed the military’s long-standing practice of expediting immigrant soldiers’ citizenship applications, saying it was no longer an option. The policy changes added more background checks and significantly extended the time someone must serve before they can receive the needed paperwork to pursue citizenship. 

Additionally, the Pentagon implemented another policy that temporarily halted all enlistments involving green card holders hoping to join the Army Reserve and National Guard. 

The ramifications hit immediately—both the number of people approved for citizenship and the number of those even applying dropped. 

The first publicly available data on military naturalizations since the implementation shows the number of immigrant applicants dropped from 3,132 directly prior to the policy change to 1,069 in the beginning of fiscal year 2018. 

Out of those that did apply, fewer immigrant service members gained U.S. citizenship than before. 2,123 service members became naturalized in the last quarter of fiscal year 2017. That number fell to only 755 by December 2018. 

In fact, the rate of citizenship denial for immigrant soldiers is now higher than those of foreign-born civilians. USCIS denied near 17 percent of all immigrant service members’ applications for citizenship, compared to just 11 percent for foreign-born civilians. 

This shift hasn’t settled well with retired U.S. Army Major General Paul Eaton. 

“The U.S. has had a long-standing tradition of immigrants come to the U.S. and have military service provide a path to citizenship,” said Eaton. “To have this turnaround, where they are actually taking a back seat to the civilian population strikes me as a bizarre turn of events.” 

Beyond the decreased numbers, this change will likely lower morale among immigrant troops. It’s difficult to imagine what an immigrant could do to prove their love of country beyond serving in the U.S. military. 

Crippled morale is, simply, never a good thing for any military. These policies that hurt immigrant soldiers will in time hurt the American public by making our military less engaged and ready for duty. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4187-immigrant-soldiers-applying-for-and-earning-citizenship-have-plummeted.html

White House’s Misguided Immigration Reform Plan Is Set for Failure

Written by Guillermo Cantor

President Trump announced his new plan for overhauling the legal immigration system on Thursday. The plan is short on details, but it rests on principles that the Trump administration has touted before. Specifically, the proposal emphasizes the desire to radically curtail family-based immigration while prioritizing certain attributes that are viewed as an expression of “merit.” 

Like he did when he supported the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act in 2017, the president now aims to shift the criteria for immigrant admission and emphasize the importance of the skills that prospective immigrants would bring to the United States. 

While the details remain unknown, the president’s proposal introduces a point system that would allow the United States to select immigrants based on a defined set of academic and professional credentials, as well as English-language skills. It would simultaneously restrict family-based admissions to immediate family members only. 

The president’s recipe for “fixing” the legal immigration system, however, seems to be based on a misguided diagnosis that has nothing to do with the actual needs of the country or American businesses, workers, and families. He simplistically defines the problem as “discriminating against genius” and admitting immigrants “by chance.” 

It’s true that employers who intend to hire foreign-born workers with specialized skills and high-skilled immigrants wanting to start a business in the United States face some obstacles in the current system. But that is only one problematic aspect of our legal immigration system. 

In this proposal, merit is narrowly defined as possessing certain types of skills, employment histories, and educational credentials. The proposal assumes these narrowly defined sets of criteria are what the country needs. However, this doesn’t account for the complexity of our economy, the various types of skills that are in demand, and the fact that those needs may change over time. 

For example, the proposal ignores the fact that so-called “less-skilled” immigrants play a fundamental role in the essential economy, which encompasses occupations such as elder care, construction, and food services, to mention just a few. 

Although it’s too early to tell, this proposal seems to be designed to exclude certain groups. For example, immigrant women who work in the domestic sphere, caring for the elderly and sick and raising the future workforce, would probably be excluded. The plan would probably also exclude individuals from countries with lower levels of human capital, or people above a certain age. 

The current system clearly has many problems. These include the system’s lack of flexibility to allow admissions to follow the fluctuations of the business cycle and the enormous backlogs for certain categories of immigrants from certain countries. The new proposal, however, does nothing to remedy those problems. Additionally, this plan provides no solution for the DACA or TPS populations—let alone the undocumented population as a whole. 

A robust reform to the immigration system that aspires to be durable should be the result of broad consensus and based on a rigorous analysis of the economic and noneconomic implications of such changes. Unfortunately, neither of these elements are present here. 

It’s also worth pointing out that when defining immigrant selection criteria, the country is not only defining a market, it is also building the foundations of a community. This aspect, not surprisingly, is not even superficially acknowledged in the President’s proposal. 

 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4169-Immigration-reform-in-the-United-States.html

More Immigrants Requesting To Return To Their Countries Of Origin Under Threat Of Deportation

Written by Kristin Macleod-Ball

More immigrants facing deportation are requesting “voluntary departure” from the United States instead of fighting their cases in court. 

Voluntary departure is a process though which certain immigrants who the government is trying to deport in immigration court leave the United States without receiving a removal order. The number of applications for voluntary departure in fiscal year 2018 doubled from the previous year, according to new U.S. Department of Justice data. The increase in immigrants applying for voluntary departure began shortly after President Trump’s inauguration. 

Immigrants who receive voluntary departure orders are required to leave the United States, just like those ordered deported. However, they do not face all the same legal consequences—like bars to returning to the United States and the risk of lengthy criminal sentences if they come back without government authorization. If someone with a voluntary departure order does not leave the United States in a set time, they automatically receive a removal order. 

While the data doesn’t explain why more people are asking for voluntary departure, the increase comes at a time the Trump administration is making it harder to get a fair hearing in immigration court. For example, Department of Justice officials want more people to stay locked up during their immigration court proceedings and have made it more difficult for people to show they are entitled to asylum. 

Faced with more and more obstacles, some immigrants may give up on strong claims to stay in the United States to avoid spending months or years incarcerated in immigration detention while fighting deportation. 

Notably, not all immigrants facing deportation are eligible for voluntary departure. Many people who have criminal convictions are barred from receiving voluntary departure orders. For others, it is unaffordable: voluntary departure generally requires individuals to post a bond and pay for their own travel to their countries of origin. Individuals in these situations face an even harsher choice: whether to accept a removal order to get out of immigration detention or stay incarcerated. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4160-Immigrants-Requesting-to-Return-to-Their-Countries-of-Origin.html

Immigrants Who Use Legal Marijuana Can Be Denied Citizenship For Lacking Good Moral Character

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Under a new guidance issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), immigrants may find themselves barred from obtaining citizenship if they possess or use marijuana—even if doing so is legal where they live. The new policy also clarifies that even employment in the industry can prevent an immigrant from being a naturalized citizen.

As more states legalize medical and recreational marijuana, immigrants may find themselves entirely left out. 

Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance. Possession of even small amounts of marijuana can qualify as a federal misdemeanor. Giving marijuana to another person—even for no money—can qualify as trafficking. 

To be eligible to become a naturalized citizen, an immigrant must demonstrate they had “good moral character” for the past five years before filing their application. But the law presumes that a person does not have “good moral character” if they have committed any violations of controlled substance laws. This is the case even if they were never arrested or convicted. There is an exception for those with a “single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.” 

Because the federal government hasn’t interfered with state legalization, many immigrants may have been unaware of these consequences. But USCIS has now made it clear that state laws do not prevent immigration consequences. 

According to the guidelines, “possession of marijuana for recreational or medical purposes or employment in the marijuana industry may constitute conduct that violates federal controlled substance laws.” 

This can be enough to tip the scales against them in judging whether they have “good moral character.” This means buying marijuana for personal use or even working as a cashier at a dispensary might bar an immigrant from citizenship. They will have to wait up to five years before being eligible to apply for citizenship again. 

Similar conflicts even get in the way of international travel. After Canada legalized recreational marijuana last year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued a warning to travelers. U.S. officials can now deny Canadians entry if they are going to the United States for “reasons related to the marijuana industry.” Those that work in the industry but are traveling for unrelated reasons won’t get turned away, although using marijuana in a legal state could disqualify them from future entries. 

As the legal marijuana industry expands, immigrants seeking to take advantage of the industry find themselves increasingly at risk. USCIS’s guidance is a clear sign that that Congress still needs to act on this state and federal conflict. This will ensure immigrants are not unfairly denied citizenship for partaking in something completely legal in their state. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4140-Immigrants-Who-Use-Legal-Marijuana-Can-Be-Denied-Citizenship.html

Tuition Equity Policies for Immigrant Students Continue to Advance at the State Level

Written by Tory Johnson

Attending a four-year public college or university is out of reach for many students without U.S. citizenship. But thanks to a growing number of new state laws—which make certain students eligible for in-state tuition rates—many more college hopefuls may be able to pursue higher education.

There is a notable trend among the many immigration-related bills making their way through state legislatures in 2018 and 2019. More states are trying to ensure that students who reside in-state can access higher education.

It’s important to note that these laws and policies, and the rationale behind them, vary among states. In some states, the policies mean in-state tuition rates apply to all students regardless of immigration status. Others apply only to certain groups of students (like those with DACA), while some states like New York offer both in-state tuition and access to certain forms of state or institutional financial aid to eligible undocumented students.

Arkansas is the latest state to pass such a law. Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson signed House Bill 1684 into law earlier this month, making in-state tuition accessible to certain students. It will apply to DACA recipients, children of people with federally issued I-766 work permits, and immigrants from the Marshall Islands. Students who have lived in Arkansas for at least 3 years and hold an Arkansas high school diploma or GED are eligible.

Leaders across the political spectrum recognize these important benefits. Rep. Dan Douglas, a republican state legislator in Arkansas who sponsored the bill, said:

“[The bill is about] giving these kids that grew up here, that are here legally or they’ve attained legal status through the DACA program, the ability to get in-state tuition… this is their home as much as it’s my grandchildren’s home, because this is where they’ve grown up. But our system doesn’t provide a pathway for them to be able to obtain citizenship.”

It’s also good for the state. Research shows Arkansas’ new law could boost the state’s economy. Estimates project an annual increase of $1.2 million in federal, state, and local taxes and over $3.9 million in spending power held by these graduates.

New York passed legislation that goes further. The Jose Peralta New York State Dream Act allows certain undocumented students to apply for state financial assistance programs. Since 2001, undocumented students in New York have been able to access in-state tuition rates but not state financial aid.

Arkansas and New York are in good company. More than 20 states and the District of Columbia have some degree of tuition equity laws or policies. These policies enable certain or all undocumented immigrant students to pay in-state rates. The other states span the country from Utah to Rhode Island and Kentucky to Hawaii.

Several state universities and university systems provide in-state tuition to undocumented students as well. This includes the University of Maine Board of Trustees, University of Michigan Board of Regents, and two Delaware universities.

Despite the differences, many state leaders and experts agree that tuition equity policies are in the best interest of the state and all of its residents. Prior research shows that states benefit when they ensure that all students can access higher education.

For example, tuition equity policies help reduce drop-out rates in high school and encourage students to stay in the state. They expand the local talent pool, increase income and tax contributions, and provide other economic and social benefits.

These recent state-level developments are an important and encouraging step. All policymakers should continue to support and address the needs of their communities and residents, both now and in the future. 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4139-Tuition-Equity-Policies-for-Immigrant-Students.html

Closing USCIS International Offices Will Leave US Citizens, Abroad Without Help

Written by Angelica Duron

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ international field offices provide critical services to Americans living abroad, as well as refugees and other immigrants. But in a supposed effort to cut costs, the Trump administration plans to close all 23 offices that span 21 countries by the end of 2019.

These offices are a lifeline for those living abroad who need to access the complex U.S. immigration system. They offer help with immigration applications that could otherwise face serious processing delays. In some cases, without the help of the offices, these applications could be stalled for over a year. 

Some of the services USCIS’ offices provide include: 

• Facilitating international adoptions.
• Assisting military families stationed abroad with applying for U.S. citizenship.
• Reuniting American citizens with dying family members that live in the United States. The U.S. citizen may need to travel with a foreign national spouse and require expedited paperwork.
• Issuing travel documents.
• Interviewing and assisting those applying for refugee status in the United States.
• Providing immigration expertise to federal entities and foreign governments.

In an internal agency memo last month, USCIS Director Lee Francis Cissna informed employees of the planned closures. The agency argues the move will reduce the backlog of immigration cases in the United States. Officials hope to lower the number of pending asylum applications in particular. 

USCIS claims it will save millions of dollars by shifting its international offices’ duties to its domestic offices and the State Department. But the plan to close international USCIS offices faces opposition from Congress. 

61 Congressmembers sent a letter earlier this month to ask for funding that would keep the offices open. It points out this is an ill-considered and underhanded attempt to decrease immigration. 

The planned closure of international offices is not unique in that respect. The Trump administration’s 2020 budget proposal significantly reduces State Department funds for humanitarian aid and all but eliminates a bureau that assists refugees. It also diverts USCIS’ regular application fees to the nation’s deficit, rather than to fund the agency itself. 

By closing USCIS offices abroad and decreasing funding for other agencies, it is becoming more difficult to navigate the immigration system. This leaves U.S. citizens, our military members, and others living abroad without accessible help. 

 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com  

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4137-Closing-USCIS-International-Offices-Will.html

HUD Proposes To Evict Citizens And Immigrants From Public Housing If They Have Undocumented Family Members

Written by Ericka Cruz

An estimated 25,000 families in public housing are of mixed-status, meaning that at least one family member is a citizen, legal permanent resident, or refugee and another member is undocumented. Although undocumented immigrants do not qualify for housing benefits, current rules allow them to live with their families who do qualify. However, this may soon change. Under a new rule proposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), citizens and legal immigrants in public or subsidized housing may be evicted if they have an undocumented family member living with them.

Under current law, a family only needs to declare the number of family members who are eligible or ineligible for the subsidies. If an undocumented family member lives in public housing with the eligible applicant, then the family only receives partial subsidies, which cover only the family members who are eligible citizens or qualifying immigrants. The current system ensures that undocumented family members do not receive any public housing assistance benefit. Because of these strict guidelines, mixed-status families usually end up paying close to market-rate for rent. 

HUD’s new proposed regulation would make it so that any family currently receiving a public housing benefit or subsidy, including Section 8 vouchers, would automatically be ineligible for any housing benefit if even one member of their family living in the house is undocumented. Under the new system, every family member’s immigration status would be screened through the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system if they are under the age of 62 and currently live in subsidized housing. 

The new rule could affect as many as 32,000 people in mixed-status families who currently receive federal housing benefits. Those families would have to choose between eviction or breaking up the family. This puts at risk vulnerable Americans and immigrants who rely on these subsidies for their housing. 

HUD argues that these evictions will help reduce wait-lists for public housing, but many low-income housing advocates disagree. Very few, if any, apartments would open because many mixed-status families will opt to split up rather than lose their benefits completely. 

This is a mean-spirited attempt at addressing major issues with public housing, including long wait-lists and substandard housing conditions. In New York alone there are currently 209,180 people on line for public housing benefits, with an additional 148,000 on line for Section 8 housing. 

HUD’s proposed regulation has been sent to Congress for a 15 day review period before it is published for a 60 day public comment period. 

 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 
https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4130-Proposes-to-Evict-Citizens-and-Immigrants-from-Public-Housing.html

Immigrants’ Taxes Help Save The Social Security System

Written by Walter Ewing

The survival of the nation’s Social Security system depends upon the taxes paid by each new generation of workers. As older workers enter retirement and draw upon Social Security, the continued tax payments of younger workers keep the system solvent and ensure that it will still be there when they, too, reach retirement age. 

In this system, the taxes paid by all workers—immigrant and native-born alike—are critical. As taxpayers, immigrants—including those who are unauthorized—add billions of dollars to the nation’s retirement system each year. 

Unfortunately, Social Security is projected to become insolvent in only a decade and a half if current trends continue. According to Social Security’s board of trustees, the system “will be depleted in 2034.” Social Security’s costs are projected to exceed its income in 2018 “for the first time since 1982.” The system needs more workers who are paying in while older Americans retire and begin collecting Social Security benefits. 

Unauthorized immigrants are therefore extending the life span of the Social Security system. In 2016, the most recent year for which data is available, unauthorized immigrants added $13.3 billion to Social Security . This comes on top of the $3.3 billion they added to Medicare and the $9.4 billion they poured into state and local tax coffers. 

According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), at least half of households headed by unauthorized immigrants file income tax returns using Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITINs) , which are issued to people without social security numbers. Many unauthorized immigrants who do not file tax returns still have taxes deducted from their paychecks too. 

It’s also important to note that immigrants in general tend to be younger than the average native-born American andmore likely to be in the labor force —meaning they are more likely to be earning taxable income and less likely to be retired. 

The fact is unauthorized immigrants are taxpayers. Given how quickly the U.S. population is aging into retirement, the contributions of unauthorized immigrants to Social Security are especially important. The system would benefit further still if unauthorized immigrants had a way to earn legal status, get better jobs, and earn higher wages. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4120-Immigrants-Taxes-Help-Save-The-Social-Security-System.html

USCIS Hits H-1B Cap Within Days, Showing America Needs Foreign Workers

Written by Walter Ewing

As another H-1B season comes to an end, one thing is clear: the demand for educated foreign workers is as high as ever. The annual H-1B cap was reached within a mere 5 business days. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting petitions for Fiscal Year 2020 on April 1. On April 12, the agency announced it’s received more petitions than the entire yearly cap allows.

There is a limit of 65,000 regular visas available each fiscal year for new hires. Another 20,000 visas are for foreign professionals who graduate with a master’s degree or Ph.D. from a U.S. university. In recent years, demand for H-1B visa numbers has far outpaced the supply. In fact, this is the seventh consecutive year that the regular H-1B visa cap was hit within a week.


USCIS issues H-1B policy changes

Beyond the inadequate number of visas, employers faced last-minute USCIS policy changes three years in a row. These policy announcements affected H-1B petitions submitted close to the first day of the filing season. 

USCIS announced a change in how petitions are processed only two short weeks before the start of this year’s filing deadline. Employers said it threw the whole program “into chaos.” 

The agency made another change in January 2019. USCIS reversed the order petitions are selected in. In the past, USCIS selected petitions for the 20,000 “master’s exemption” first. Now, the agency will first conduct a lottery using all H-1B petitions. After that lottery is complete, it will run a second lottery with all remaining “master’s exempt” petitions. 


How this may affect H-1B petition selection

This change will likely result in USCIS selecting more petitions for workers with U.S. master’s degrees or Ph.Ds. But that change doesn’t necessarily represent the best choice for every available position. 

Under the new system, some workers may slip through the cracks. 

For instance, a foreign national with a master’s degree from a U.S. university might have a better chance of getting an H-1B visa number than a scientist with a Ph.D. from a foreign university. 


H-1B workers will still be in high demand

Though these new policies may alter the H-1B selection process, the workers will continue to be in high demand. The inadequacy of the H-1B cap is one sign. But the fact that unemployment rates are low in occupations that use large numbers of workers with H-1B visas is another sign. 

For example, jobs in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) field have low unemployment rates compared to the national average. H-1B workers are most commonly employed in STEM jobs. These low unemployment rates signal a demand for labor that exceeds supply. This means H-1B workers are not displacing native-born workers. 

H-1B workers also tend to earn higher wages than comparable U.S.-born workers, even after accounting for differences in age and occupation. This holds true across fields like information technology, engineering, healthcare, and post-secondary education. Employers aren’t saving money by hiring H-1B workers. This suggests these workers have skills which are in high demand. 

The arbitrary numerical cap on the number of new H-1B visas does not serve the interests of U.S. workers or the U.S. economy. Rather, the cap starves the labor force of talented foreign professionals who fuel economic growth and innovation. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4109-America-Needs-Foreign-Workers.html

Certain Detained Asylum Seekers Must Receive a Bond Hearing Within 7 Days, Judge Orders

Written by Kristin Macleod-Ball

Asylum seekers are often imprisoned in immigration detention for weeks or months before they can ask a judge to release them, even though they’re entitled to bond hearings. But this injustice may soon be corrected for some asylum seekers. 

On Friday, a U.S. district court judge ruled that certain detained asylum seekers must receive a bond hearing within seven days of requesting one. The Seattle judge also ordered that immigration courts must provide legal protections at the hearings. 

The ruling in the Padilla v. ICE case is a defeat for the Trump administration. It strikes a blow against the ongoing campaign to punish and deter migrants from seeking asylum. 

Judge Marsha J. Peckman ordered the immigration courts to: 

• Provide certain detained asylum seekers with a bond hearing within 7 days of requesting one.
• Put the burden of proof on the Department of Homeland Security—not the asylum seekers—to justify continued detention.
• Record or provide a transcript of the hearings.
• Issue a written decision that explains why an immigration judge decides to grant or deny bond at the time the decision is made.

The case is a nationwide class action brought by detained asylum seekers. The decision, which grants their motion for a preliminary injunction, applies to all detained asylum seekers who entered the United States between ports of entry and then passed an initial screening on their asylum claims called a credible fear interview. The American Immigration Council and Northwest Immigrant Rights Project represent the asylum seekers. 

This order could drastically change the situation of thousands of detained asylum seekers. Many would no longer need to wait for weeks or months to get a bond hearing. 

The order would also put in place important legal protections. Currently, even once they receive bond hearings, asylum seekers are at a disadvantage. They are often unable to gather evidence or obtain legal representation to help with their bond requests while behind bars. Yet, the courts still require they bear the burden of proof to show why they should be released. 

Under this system, asylum seekers also are often left in the dark about why their bond requests are denied. Bond hearings are not generally recorded. Judges also don’t have to explain in writing why they denied bond until after an immigrant has already appealed the decision. This creates serious problem for asylum seekers trying to appeal bond denials. 

These unfair practices leave many immigrants incarcerated during the entire, lengthy asylum process. Immigrants forced to stay in detention are less likely to succeed in their asylum cases. Some may even give up valid claims to remain in the United States to get out of unsafe detention conditions . 

The ruling is set to take effect within 30 days. However, the government could appeal the decision to a higher court or take other steps to prevent it from going into effect in those 30 days. 

This decision is still a first step towards ensuring asylum seekers have access to prompt, fair bond hearings.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4103-Asylum-Seekers-Must-Receive-a-Bond-Hearing-Within-7-Days.html