Immigration Court Decision Concerning the Return to Mexico Program Raises More Questions than it Answers

On September 17, 2019, an Immigration Judge in San Diego, California, terminated removal proceedings for a family of aliens whom the U.S. Government had made subject to the Migrant Protection Protocol ("MPP"), colloquially known as the Remain in Mexico program.  The Judge held that the Government had no authority to apply the MPP to aliens apprehended in the territory of the United States, as opposed to aliens classified as "arriving aliens."  The Judge concluded that the only remedy available to the respondents in this situation was termination of the removal proceedings.

The decision, however, raises more questions than it answers.

The Government established the MPP during the 2018-19 winter to address the increase of Central American migrants traveling to the United States to seek asylum.  Prior to the MPP, the Obama Administration implemented the Catch and Release program, where certain migrants apprehended by the Government were released on bond into the United States pending removal proceedings.  In most cases, these were migrants who claimed a fear of persecution if they were returned to their home country, and who passed a credible fear interview. 

President Trump, who greatly opposed to the Obama Administration's Catch and Release program, sought to implement the MPP to prevent the Central American migrants from remaining in the territory of the United States pending removal proceedings.  Mexico had agreed to permit certain migrants to remain in Mexican territory during the pendency of their removal proceedings in the United States.

Pursuant to the MPP, if a migrant who lacked proper visa documentation or attempted to gain entry based on fraud claimed fear of persecution, immigration officials would follow the procedures set forth in section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), and refer the migrant to an asylum officer for a credible fear interview.  If the migrant passed the credible fear interview, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") would issue a Notice to Appear and commence removal proceedings, where the migrant could apply for asylum before an Immigration Judge.  Once in removal proceedings, ICE returned the migrant to Mexico, where the migrant would wait for his or her next Immigration Court hearing.

The Government's authority to implement the MPP stemmed from section 235(b)(2)(C) of the INA.  That section of the statute provided that if an alien arrived on land from a foreign country contiguous to the United States, that alien could be returned to the contiguous country pending removal proceedings.  This provision of the INA, however, is subject to the exception of aliens who are eligible for expedited removal.

Through expedited removal, immigration authorities may remove an alien who either lacks proper documentation, or has attempted to enter through fraud, without subjecting that alien to formal removal proceedings before an Immigration Court.  Expedited removal applies to aliens apprehended at a port of entry or at the border, or who are apprehended within 100 miles of the border and cannot prove that they entered more than 14 days prior to the apprehension. 

Currently, the MPP is subject to litigation in federal court.  Opponents of the program argue that the Government cannot apply the MPP to aliens who are eligible for expedited removal because of the statutory exception.  The Government replies that it has discretion on whether to apply expedited removal.  If the Government chooses not to apply expedited removal, despite the alien's eligibility, and instead places the alien in full removal proceedings before an Immigration Court, then the MPP may apply to that alien.

The decision of the Immigration Judge in San Diego does not address the federal litigation over the MPP.  Indeed, Immigration Courts lack the authority to address such litigation.  Immigration Courts are not part of the Judiciary Branch of Government.  They are instead more akin to administrative courts, and are part of the Executive Branch.  As such, Immigration Courts only have the authority as set forth in the INA, which is to adjudicate whether the specific alien before it is removable from the United States.

The Immigration Judge did address a different issue raised by the MPP.  Namely, whether the MPP can be applied to aliens who do not meet the definition of an arriving alien.  An arriving alien is specifically defined as an alien who presents himself or herself for inspection at a port of entry, or who is apprehended on the border.  The Immigration Judge noted that 90% of the aliens who were being placed in the MPP and sent back to Mexico awaiting removal proceedings were aliens apprehended in the territory of the United States.  That is, aliens who crossed the border and were found by immigration authorities inside U.S. territory.  This is a separate category of aliens.  The Judge emphasized this point, noting that arriving aliens possess fewer rights than aliens apprehended within the United States.  Because section 235(b)(2)(C) expressly applied to arriving aliens, the Judge held that the Government violated the law by applying the MPP to aliens apprehended within the United States.

However, the Immigration Judge noted that it was a court of limited authority.  The court had no authority to order the Government to bring the aliens wrongfully placed in the MPP back into the United States from Mexico.  The only authority it had was to terminate the removal proceedings, without prejudice.  This means that the Government could refile the Notice to Appear and being new removal proceedings.  But the court could not order that the Government do so.

Although the decision is significant in that it finds that the U.S. Government is applying the MPP in an illegal manner, the outcome raises more questions than it answers.  It does not answer the question of whether the aliens wrongfully placed in the MPP will eventually return to the United States.  Indeed, arguably the Government could just ignore the aliens who are already in Mexico, and refuse to restart removal proceedings.  Under such circumstances, the aliens may need to begin more litigation, such as a habeas corpus proceeding, or sue the Government for a breach of constitutional rights.  The ultimate success of such litigation remains in doubt.

Moreover, the Government can appeal the Immigration Judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.  The future of the particular migrants subject to this decision, as well as others similarly situated, remains clouded.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.

Trump Administration Adopts Asylum Regulation Directly Contrary to the Plain Language of the Statute

The Trump Administration has shown once again its disdain for the legal process of immigration, issuing a regulation directly contrary to the plain language of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 

The specific issue concerns asylum. Asylum is legal protection granted by a country to people who have a reasonable fear of persecution in their home country based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. A person granted asylum has the legal right to remain the United States, work and obtain a travel document. After one year, an asylee may apply for lawful permanent residence, which can lead to citizenship. 

The Department of Justice issued an interim final rule prohibiting anyone who enters the United States through the southern border with Mexico at anywhere other than an official port of entry from applying for asylum, effective after the President has made a Proclamation to that effect. Put simply, once the President issues his Proclamation, migrants who do not hold a visa must enter through an official port of entry in order to apply for asylum if they cross over from Mexico. Any alien who sneaks across the border will be barred from applying for asylum. 

But this contradicts the statute. The process of applying for asylum is governed by section 208 of the INA.  Section 208(a)(1) states, “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b).” (Emphasis added).

The law, as passed by Congress, therefore guarantees the right to apply for asylum to any alien present in the United States, regardless of how that alien entered or what that alien’s legal immigration status is. That is, an alien who entered the United States by crossing the border without a legally valid visa, and at a place other than an official port of entry, may by law apply for asylum even if that alien has no legal immigration status in the United States.

The US law wherein Congress passed this provision was the Refugee Act of 1978. Through this law, Congress implemented US international obligations stemming from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Protocol, in particular, prohibits a country from imposing a penalty on a refugee because that refugee either entered the country illegally or is present in the country illegally. 

A regulation is a rule issued by the Executive Branch implementing a statute passed by Congress. Regulations may interpret ambiguous language in a statute, or adopt policies pursuant to a statute where Congress has authorized the Executive Branch to adopt such policies. A regulation cannot contradict the plain language of the statute. 

In this instance, then, where Congress expressly provided that an alien present in the United States May apply for asylum regardless of whether that alien is present illegally or crossed the border illegally, a regulation cannot restrict the ability of aliens to apply for asylum only if they come through an official port of entry. With the regulation being directly contrary to the plain language of section 208(a)(1) of the INA, the Administration has no legal authority to adopt it. In the end, this restriction on the availability of asylum cannot withstand legal scrutiny. 

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

Problems with Gang-Related Asylum Cases

Gang related asylum cases present one of the biggest challenges to immigration attorneys. But they also represent one of the largest categories of asylum claims.

Many times, clients and prospective clients come into the office with the expectation that because they were victims of gang violence in their home country, that they should receive protection in the United States. But this is rarely the case.

As many immigration judges are quick to point out, asylum law is not meant to grant protection from general criminality. To receive asylum protection, and applicant must have a reasonable fear of persecution based on one of the five protected reasons. They are: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

Often, advocating for a gang related asylum case involves trying to place the applicant in some particular social group. However, this category is not meant to be a catchall category. As recent case law has demonstrated, the group cannot be defined as being too large as to include a broad segment of society. There must be some boundary to the group. There must be something about this group that sets it apart from the rest of society. And the members of this group must see themselves as some kind of social unit.

Add to the complication the fact that there are 12 different federal circuits who review immigration court decisions. The result is great variety and what is an acceptable particular social group.

Young men who have been recruited by the gangs, but who have resisted such recruitment, for example, has been recognized as a viable particular social group in some circuits. But other circuits reject the category. Likewise, witnesses providing testimony against gang violence has been recognized by some circuits, but rejected by others.

This patchwork of decisions addressing what makes up a particular social group when it comes to gang-related violence has created a rather peculiar situation. Family ties are recognized as a valid basis upon which to build a particular social group. Thus, it is possible that family members of a person targeted for gang violence may qualify as a particular social group, while the person who is actually targeted for the gang violence will not qualify for asylum protection.

What is clear however is that the victims of the gang related violence need to establish some reason why the gang has targeted them, that sets them apart from the rest of their society. This can often be difficult for applicants who come from gang ravaged countries, like those of Central America.

One way around this problem is to make the claim that the applicant is being persecuted because of an imputed political opinion. Gangs in Central America at times operate much like governments. They control particular territories, charge taxes or rent for the people who live in their territories or do business in their territories, and protect their territories fiercely. Gangs have also been known to protect their authority, engaging in extreme violence against anyone who questions them. Gangs may also target a person for violence if the gang believes that the person is affiliated with a rival gang. Applicants who have been able to paint their case as one of a struggle against the power and authority of the gangs, and thus a case of an imputed political opinion, have met with some success in progressive federal circuits, such as the Ninth Circuit.

Certainly an argument can be made that United States is in a large way responsible for the uncontrollable gang situation in the northern triangle of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. United States chooses to deport people after they have spent time in prison, where they have picked up their affiliations to American made gangs. Those deported individuals take back with them knowledge of an organizational structure that the Central American governments are simply unready and unable to address effectively.

But the reality is it is not politically popular for the United States to take responsibility for the gang violence in Central America. Instead, politicians push to close the borders, in an attempt to exclude the gang related element from United States. For the practitioner, the challenge is to find creative ways around this situation, and to work with the clients in order to craft the strongest asylum clean possible.

William J. Kovatch, Jr.
For an appointment, call (703) 837-8832
Se habla espanol (703) 298-0502

Links

National Immigrant Justice Center, Particular Social Group Practice Advisory

National Immigrant Justice Center, Resources for Asylum Claims Based on Membership in a Particular Social Group

No, Undocumented Aliens are not About to Bankrupt the Federal Government Looking for Hand-Outs

Over the weekend, I saw a Facebook friend link to a video which he believed was the definitive proof that those "illegals" are just coming to the United States to live off the backs of taxpayers.  The video is a Fox News "Special Report" by Steve Harrigan sometime in the Spring of 2013.  Although the video is three years old, it is still making its rounds. A quick Google search revealed that it has been used by conservative causes to demand that politicians do something about these "illegals" living off the public dole. 

As I watched the video with a critical eye, I noted that it was short on facts, accurate information and real analysis, and long on misdirection and scare tactics.

The video focused on a woman.  I hesitate to mention her by name, since she has been made the pariah of the opponents of immigration reform.  Still, I cannot find one article on the Internet that defends her.  And for that reason alone, let me tell you about the story of Marita Nelson.

According to Harrigan, Nelson crossed the Rio Grande to enter this country over twenty years ago.  She has been receiving public assistance for over twenty years. She has seven mouths to feed, and the $240 per month she receives from SNAP (or as he calls it, food stamps) does not last through three weeks.  Harrigan claims that Nelson, who is fifty years olds, receives funds for public housing, government help with medication and $700 per month in Social Security.  There is some talk about her receiving some child support, but no details are given.

Harrigan then expresses complete surprise that there are privately funded organizations out there that actually help people find public assistance programs for which they qualify.  And Nelson has the temerity to urge people who need help to go look for it before it is too late.

Horrors!

Well, let's analyze this piece by piece, with reference to the actual law.  A thoughtful analysis shows why any fears are just unsubstantiated.  We'll start with Nelson's immigration status.  The assumption is that since Nelson crossed the Rio Grande over twenty years ago, she must be illegal!  Some conservative bloggers go so far as to say that she's criminal.

I hate to break it to you, but crossing the border without a visa is not necessarily a crime.  It is illegal, yes.  But, as the Immigration Courts and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement love to point out, immigration law is civil, not criminal (even though people in removal proceedings are put in "detention" which looks an awful lot like jail).  So we cannot conclude that Nelson is a criminal.

More importantly, we cannot even conclude that she is necessarily an illegal alien.  We do not know where she is from.  We do not know why she came to the United States.  We do not know if she is married.  People who crossed the border illegally could still qualify for asylum or temporary protected status, two legal programs under U.S. immigration law.  If she were in removal proceedings, having been in the United States over ten years, she could qualify for cancellation of removal, which would make her a legal permanent resident.  Perhaps she married a U.S. citizen and was grandfathered under an older law that would allow her to become a legal permanent resident.  Without more facts, we just don't know what her immigration status is.

But let's assume that she is undocumented, for the sake of argument.  Does her story give definitive proof that those pesky "illegals" will just pour across our border to step up to the public trough?

The first key to understanding this story is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.  This act of Congress prohibited undocumented aliens from applying for federal benefits.  The act was passed on August 22, 1996.  This means that it applied only to people receiving public benefits after that date.  If Nelson has been receiving public benefits for over twenty years, then she would have been receiving benefits as of 1993, or before the passage of the act.  She would therefore have been grandfathered in, and thus not prohibited from receiving benefits.  The real point here is that her case does not mean that people who cross the border today or tomorrow or who crossed the border ten years ago can receive federal benefits such as SNAP, public housing or health insurance.

But let's go further.  We'll start with Social Security.  Social Security administers three programs: (1) retirement benefits; (2) insurance for becoming disabled after working; and (3) supplemental income for those who are disabled.  To receive retirement benefits, you have to be at least sixty-five.  At age fifty, Nelson is too young.  To receive disability insurance, you must have worked for 40 quarters paying into the Social Security system.  If Nelson were undocumented, it seems unlikely that she would have been working legally and the would not qualify for that program.  As for the supplemental income, well let's not forget that Nelson has seven mouths to feed.  Some of those mouths are likely her children.  She could very well have children born in the United States and thus U.S. citizens.  If a U.S. citizen child is disabled, then the child may be eligible for supplemental income.  But note that the benefits would belong to the U.S. citizen child, and Nelson might only be serving as the representative payee, who receives the benefits on the child's behalf and is legally obligated to use the benefits for the child.

The problem is that from the report itself, we just don't know.  Nothing is mentioned about her children, other than the fact that Nelson receives child support.

U.S. citizen children could possibly explain other benefits.  The SNAP benefits could belong to the children.  The public housing could belong to the children.  If she did have a U.S. citizen child who was disabled, then that child might qualify for Medicaid, thus explaining the assistance with medication.  But we do not know any of the relevant facts from the report.  Instead, Harrigan purposefully leads the viewer to think that the benefits are for Nelson herself.

The point is that a critical eye, armed with knowledge of the law, demonstrates that Harriman's so-called "Special Report" is nothing but fear mongering meant to stir up xenophobia, racism and hatred of those darned "illegals."  In reality, there is no danger that those who crossed the border recently, or who will cross the border in the future, are about to bankrupt the U.S. treasury looking for government hand-outs.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
(571) 551-6069 (ESP)

Ignorance of Immigration Law Abounds, Particularly with GOP Lawmakers

 When I read this article from ABC News on the plight of migrant children who cross the southern border from Central America, I was struck by the quote from Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. "It cannot be that every young person from Central America is entitled to asylum or entry into this country," he is quoted as saying. 

The quote, I believe, betrays the true thought process behind many Republican lawmakers and their tea party supporters on immigration issues. Sure, the stylish thing for conservatives to say is that they support immigration, just not illegal immigration. Except that hidden in Sessions' statement is a criticism of the legal programs and processes that exist in U.S. immigration law. 

Let's start with asylum. This is a program to give protection to people who fear persecution, such as the threat of serious violence, in their home country. On one hand, it is difficult to obtain asylum. But on the other, if a foreign born person proves that he or she qualifies for asylum, U.S. law mandates that the Federal Government grant protection and a pathway that could lead to permanent residency and eventually citizenship. 

Yet asylum, despite it being a legal program, is one of the key targets of conservatives' criticism. Indeed, some conservatives complain about the number of green cards the Obama Administration has handed out. Seemingly lost in the criticism is that the green card process is the process to become a legal permanent resident. 

What also seems to escape conservative critics is that there is a legal process for determining eligibility for legal immigration programs. This is a country of laws. Our Constitution requires Due Process. The Government cannot simply pick up a person near the border because they look Hispanic and automatically ship them back to Central America. Let's not forget how many citizens of this country are of Hispanic origin. Fortunately, this isn't like the film caricatures of Nazi German where the Gestapo get to demand to see the "papers" of everyone. Citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. 

But the immigration courts of this country are clogged. There are not enough judges and government attorneys to handle the cases already in court. No one seems to be willing to spend the money to create more courts, hire more judges and hire more attorneys. The result is that cases tend to remain pending for years. 

Even then, there are more programs available than simply asylum. I hesitate to list them here, for fear that if GOP lawmakers really did understand the breadth of immigration law would be motivated to repeal those programs. 

Probably most alarming in statements like that of Sessions is the callousness that it betrays. Central American countries such as El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua are plagued by gang violence. Yet, many in the United States like to turn a blind eye to that violence and deny the role of this country in creating a situation that the Central Americans governments are unable to manage on their own. 

We as a society are judged by how we protect the vulnerable. An immigration system without compassion erodes our humanity and condemns the helpless to situations they had no role in creating. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Call for an appointment (703) 837-8832
Se habla español (571) 551-6069 

Immigration Judge Finds Theft of Food and Livestock Does Not Trigger Material Support Bar

 

 

In a case that had been pending almost twenty-five years, Arlington Immigration Judge Paul W. Schmidt found that the theft of food and livestock by the FMLN (Farabundo Marti Nation Liberation Front) from the Respondent’s home did not constitute material support of terrorism.  The ruling paved the way for an El Salvadoran man, who had escaped his country’s civil war, to receive permanent residency in the United States.

The Respondent, who fled El Salvador in 1988 when he found a bomb in front of his house, had been attempting to obtain some form of immigration relief since 1990, when he filed his first asylum application.  His most recent attempt was through an application through the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (known as NACARA), which permits, among other things, certain Central Americans who have been present in the United States since the early 1990s to adjust to permanent residency, provided they can show good moral character and extreme hardship if returned to their home country.

Eligibility for immigration relief, however, is often not enough.  Rather, those who meet the eligibility requirements must still show that they are admissible under U.S. Immigration law.  One ground of inadmissibility applies to those who have provided material support to a terrorist organization.  This is called the material support bar.

U.S. courts have upheld a broad interpretation of the material support bar made by the Board of Immigration Appeals.  The material support bar can be triggered, for example, merely by providing food and directions to a group that the U.S. Government labels as a terrorist organization.  The text of the statute itself provides for no exception to the material support bar even if the support was given under duress.  Thus, a credible threat of immediate death may not excuse someone who has given food to a group labeled as terrorist.

In the Respondent’s case, he testified that twice the FMLN came to his home and took food and livestock.  The first time, they took about twenty tortillas.  The second time, they took one of his animals.  The Respondent did not stop the FMLN because he feared that he would be killed.  Because the U.S. Government labeled the FMLN a terrorist organization, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement argued that this triggered the material support bar in the Respondent’s case.

In a written opinion, Judge Schmidt ruled that it did not.  Citing an unpublished Board of Immigration Appeals case, the Immigration Judge found that in order to be material the support has to be active.  The fact that the FMLN stole food and livestock from the Respondent, therefore, did not constitute material support.  The Judge granted the Respondent his NACARA application, paving the way for him and his minor daughter to become permanent residents.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Call now for an appointment:
(703) 837-8832
(571) 551-6069 (ESP)
wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com

Harsh Republican Action May Spur Administrative Response on Immigration

In a move largely seen as pandering to Tea Party activists, House Republicans passed a bill Friday that would increase funding for border security and attempt to send the tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors attempting to enter the United States over the southern border back to their home countries expeditiously. House Republicans also took action to undo President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. 

The move appears to be a purely symbolic one, since the bill has no chance of passing the Democratically controlled Senate. Still, House Republicans have sent a signal that they may not be willing to consider serious immigration reform. 

In a purely political calculation, House Republicans may see a greater threat from more conservative candidates in the primaries than from Democrats in the general election. The stunning primary loss of Eric Cantor has only emphasized this line of thinking. This, House Republivans do not appear to be willing to be seen as supporting anything closer to "amnesty" prior to the November elections. 

The House move, however, may have encouraged the Obama Administration to take drastic measures on its own. Democrats are already facing the prospect of the Republic as maintaining their majority in the House of Representatives. There is a possibility that the Republicans could take the Senate as well. Either way, the chances of legislative action on immigration reform before the end of President Obama's term appear almost non-existent. 

The President may, therefore, take executive action to ease deportations and removals for non-criminal undocumented aliens. One proposal that has been floated has been to grant the parents of DACA recipients deferred action. Another has been to grant deferred action to all undocumented aliens without a criminal record. 

The Administration appears to have anticipated the argument that such a move would be overreaching. Articles have already appeared in the media warning that Republicans may seek to initiate impeacent proceedings if the President takes such action. This could be an attempt to portray Republican resistance as being unreasonable. 

What action may happen is now hard to predict. William J. Kovatch, Jr., Attorney at Law, PLLC will remain on top of decelopments, ready to assist those with immigration issues when any action occurs. 

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

(703) 837-8832

Wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com

Promising Asylum Cases from the Fourth Circuit

In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals has issued two cases that give some hope to people from Central America filing asylum applications based on gang-related issues.

In Martinez v. Holder, Crt No. 12-2424 (January 24, 2014), the Court held that being a former gang member was an immutable characteristic and may serve as the basis for claiming persecution based on a particular social group.  The case was remanded back to the Board of immigration Appeals.

In Aquino-Cardova v. Holder, Crt No. 13-1597 (July 17, 2014), the Court held that a person who is related to members of rival gangs who in turn are targeted for violence may qualify as a particular social group based on family ties.  This case was also remanded to the BIA.

These opinions appear to signal a shift in the trend in asylum law, wherein the U.S. Government resisted gang-related asylum claims.  The Fourth Circuit is largely considered a conservative jurisdiction, and thus these opinions which have a more liberal holding on asylum law are very significant.  While it may be early to tell, the cases could signal a trend of loosening the restrictions for aliens applying for asylum because they are escaping gang-related violence in Central America.  The cases have come in time to perhaps have some affect on the huge surge of Central Americans fleeing their countries and crossing the U.S. border with Mexico.

If you have a gang-related asylum case, call me for an appointment at (703) 837-8832, or email me at wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com.

By:

William J. Kovatch, Jr.

Lessons from the Surge: Adult Male Migrants

Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that there has been an almost unprecedented surge of migrants making the dangerous trek from Central America and across the Mexican border into the United States.

Make no mistake, those who come to the United Stayes this way are doing so illegally and are immediately removable. But, I'm starting to see a trend in how the Administration is treating these migrants. It is in stark contrast to what Immigration authorities were doing just months ago. 

In this post, I will talk about the trend for adult males. The surge in unaccompanied children is much more complex and deserves its own post. 

Even if an alien has crossed the border illegally and is immediately removable, they still have the right to claim that they have a reasonable fear of persecution. If the claim is made, then an Asylum Officer conducts an interview to see if the fear is credible. If the fear is found credible, then the case gets referred to Immigration Court where the alien gets an opportunity for a full hearing. 

The persecution claims from adult males can roughly fall into a few categories: (1) I'm being recruited by gangs, I don't want to join and now they're threatening to kill me; (2) I used to be part of a gang, I quit and they're threatening to kill me; (3) I witnessed a gang-related crime, and they want to kill me; and (4) the police are corrupt and helping the gangs, they wanted me to sell drugs, I refused and now the police want to kill me. 

Just three months ago, the first three of these stories were being dismissed by the Asylum Officer. 

Things have drastically changed. With the huge surge, the US Government does not have the resources to house all of the migrants who are waiting for the legal process to work itself out. In my opinion, and I have no way of proving this, I believe Asylum Officers have been given instructions to be more liberal with their reasonable fear determinations. This, stories falling in categories 1 through 3, which were summarily denied before are being approved now. 

This means more aliens with reasonable fear stories are being released on bond and placed in full Immigration Court proceedings. The bond amount is almost universally $7,500. 

The trend in immigration law had been for the US Government to fight the granting of any gang-related asylum claims. As hard-line opinions came out, it left immigration lawyers like me somewhat despondent. We had to advice clients whom we knew were going to be murdered the minute that they arrived in their home country that there was nothing we could do for them.

This surge may wind up being the chance to soften the US Government's stance on gang-related asylum cases. In a way, the softening has already started as the Fourth Circuit, no bastion of bleeding hearts, issued a more liberal opinion on gang-related asylum cases this year. 

At any rate, an alien released on bond with a reasonable fear claim should contact a lawyer immediately. Lawyers know how to put together a case with evidence that is more likely to be approved. 

To contact me about your case, call (703) 837-8832 or email wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com. 

William Kovatch

Gang-Related Asylum Cases

A few years ago, as I sat in Immigration Court waiting for my case, one of the cases that went before me applied for asylum based on the fear of gang-related violence in Central America.  I listened as the Immigration judge admonished the lawyer to be sure that he read the latest Board of Immigration Appeals case on the subject, In re S-E-G-.  The judge indicated that he would have very little patience for any gang-related asylum claims which did not meet the BIA's new social visibility standard.

With all due respect, the Immigration Judge's attitude on the subject was entirely inappropriate.  To be sure, Immigration Judges are bound by BIA decisions.  But, the BIA is not the final word on interpretations of U.S. immigration law.  Rather, legal interpretations made by the BIA are subject to legal review by the various circuit courts of appeals in the United States.

Since S-E-G, at least two circuits have rejected the BIA's social visibility standard.  Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit found that the standard "makes no sense," and noted that some groups to which the BIA had extended asylum protection would not meet this new standard.  Specifically, homosexuals in a homophobic society could pass for heterosexuals, and indeed had an incentive to do so to avoid persecution.  Likewise, women who had not undergone female genital mutilation would appear no different from other females in society.  Yet, both social groups had received asylum protection under BIA decisions.

The UN Human Rights Committee has also criticized the BIA's social visibility standard as being inconsistent with UNHRC guidelines.  Such guidelines are often used by the BIA and U.S. courts to interpret U.S. asylum law.

Currently, there is a split among the U.S. circuit courts on the issue of social visibility.  Under these circumstances, it is entirely reasonable for those with gang-related asylum claims to adopt a strategy to press for Supreme Court review.  Although the path would be difficult in some circuits, the possible severity of the consequences of deportation would argue to press for clarity from the highest court on whether this standard should stand.

I go into more detail in this article.

A recent briefing on legal issues surrounding gang-related asylum claims can be found here.

By: Willliam J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com