Is It Legal to Cross the Border to Seek Asylum

  • Beitrags-Autor:
  • Beitrags-Kategorie:Allgemein

The Ninth District appeal process typically takes even longer, and it is not uncommon for several years to elapse between the filing of a request for review and the decision on the appeal. However, like the BIA, the Ninth Judicial District typically handles appeals from detained immigrants more quickly than those released from ICE custody. Refugee claimants detained at the time their application for review is filed with the Ninth Judicial District are often entitled to another type of bail hearing. The decision of the Ninth District in a case called Casas-Castrillon v. Department of Homeland Security, which is why these types of bail hearings are informally referred to as „Casas hearings.“ The process is more complicated for those who receive negative provisions. Negative, credible and reasonable decisions may be challenged for review by an immigration judge. Immigration judges have the discretion, after reviewing all documents in the refugee officer`s file and receiving additional evidence from the claimant or her counsel, to uphold or rescind the refugee officer`s negative decision. If the negative decision is overturned, the asylum seeker is heard by an immigration judge to initiate the formal asylum procedure as part of the deportation procedure. Those who have already been the subject of a deportation order begin the „restraint only“ procedure.

In November 2019, DHS began implementing an „asylum cooperation agreement“ with Guatemala. Under this type of agreement, also known as the Safe Third Country Agreement, people seeking asylum in the United States are instead sent to a third country and must apply for asylum there. Persons subject to these treaties cannot seek asylum or other protection, including denial of deportation, in the United States. A similar agreement with Honduras entered into force in May 2020. The legality of these agreements is currently being questioned. There is not much difference between credible fear interviews and reasonable fear interviews. The purpose of each interview is to determine whether the person seeking asylum actually has a credible background, and also whether the circumstances of the story reach the legal level required to seek asylum, refuse removal, or the Convention against Torture. Credible and reasonable fear-based interviews are conducted by asylum seekers. Persons subject to credible fear procedures must prove to the asylum officer that they have a „meaningful opportunity“ to determine their eligibility for asylum (or refusal of deportation or WCB). Persons subject to proceedings with well-founded fears must prove to the asylum officer that there is a „reasonable possibility“ that they will be tortured or persecuted for very specific and limited reasons in their country of origin. While credible interviews and reasonable apprehension interviews are similar, the legal standard of reasonable apprehension is higher. The countries of citizenship of those granted asylum remained broadly the same over this 10-year period (fiscal year 2007-2018), with nationals of China and Egypt accounting for a significant proportion of asylum seekers.

The remaining asylum-seekers during this period were nationals of Guatemala, Haiti, Venezuela, Iraq, Ethiopia, Iran, Colombia and Russia. There are two main ways for a person to seek asylum in the United States: the positive process and the defensive process. An asylum seeker — or a person granted asylum — is protected from return to their home country, is allowed to work in the United States, can apply for a Social Security card, can apply for permission to travel abroad, and can apply to bring family members to the United States. Asylum seekers may also be eligible for certain government programs, such as Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance. Thousands of people from other countries travel to the border every year to seek asylum. Asylum, sometimes called „political asylum“, is protection against deportation granted to certain foreigners who can prove that they would be persecuted if returned to their country of origin. In addition to asylum, asylum seekers can apply for two other protection measures at the border – refusal of deportation and the Convention against Torture (CAT). Those who are granted asylum then have the right to apply for lawful permanent residency, allowing non-citizens to eventually apply for citizenship through the naturalization process.

Those who do not receive asylum, but instead receive protection through a refusal of deportation or the Convention Against Torture (CAT), can remain in the United States and are generally allowed to obtain work permits. In fiscal year 2018, the latest year for which data is available, 38,687 people were granted asylum: 25,439 positive and 13,248 defensive (Figure 1). Annual asylum claims averaged 25,161 between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2018. During the COVID-19 pandemic, epidemiologists and other health experts have made it clear that asylum seekers and their children can be safely treated at the border through public health measures. We need a more efficient, humane and hospitable system at the border for asylum seekers. Much of the money Congress is currently spending on the inflated Border Patrol should instead be spent on ensuring that our federal and immigration courts have enough staff and judges to assess asylum claims in a fair and orderly manner, and to ensure that people are supported in their efforts to join family members and sponsors at their destination. The sooner people can integrate into their new homes and get work permits, the sooner they can feed themselves and their families and contribute to their new community in other ways. 1. Applicants for asylum subject to a prior removal order.

Asylum seekers who have already been removed and pass their fearful interviews are subject to „mandatory detention,“ meaning that an immigration judge usually has no legal authority to order their release. Through a class action lawsuit called Aleman Gonzalez v. Barr, that group of asylum seekers in Arizona, the right to a hearing by an immigration judge is guaranteed after spending 180 days in immigration detention. | Green Evans-Schroeder (formerly Matthew H. Green Law Firm) is proud to play its role as class counsel in this important litigation.