• Hours & Info

    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
  • Past Blog Posts

  • https://api.whatsapp.com/send?phone=13104885414

REAL ID ACT Updates and Asylum

The June 2009 Immigration Briefings, entitled “Credibility, Burden of Proof, and Corroboration Under the Real ID Act,” 09-06 Immigration Briefing 1 (June 2009), discusses credibility determinations as prescribed by the REAL ID Act of 2005, primarily in the context of asylum relief. The Briefing addresses both burden of proof and corroboration as part of its analysis of credibility under the REAL ID Act. The Briefing begins with a historical background of the REAL ID Act and continues by examining burden-of-proof issues. The Briefing provides an analysis of the standard requirement under the REAL ID Act that aliens applying for relief demonstrate that harm on account of a protected ground be at least one central reason for feared persecution as compared with the pre-REAL ID Act mixed-motive standard. Also discussed in the Briefing are the REAL ID Act credibility amendments, which require that factfinders consider the totality of circumstances when considering credibility as applied to minor inconsistencies in testimony and the heart of the applicant’s claim. Finally, the Briefing discusses language in the REAL ID Act that gives immigration judges the right to demand that an alien produce evidence to corroborate otherwise-credible testimony unless that alien does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain it.

The June Briefing was written by James Feroli, an attorney with the Immigrant and Refugee Appellate Center in Alexandria, Virginia, specializing in immigration appellate issues.
During the 108 Congress, a number of proposals related to immigration and
identification-document security were introduced, some of which were considered
in the context of implementing recommendations made by the National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission)
and enacted pursuant to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 (P.L. 108-458).  At the time that the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act was adopted, some congressional leaders reportedly agreed to revisit certain immigration and document-security issues in the 109th Congress that had been dropped from the final version of the act.
The REAL ID Act of 2005 was first introduced as H.R. 418 by Representative
James Sensenbrenner on January 26, 2005, and passed the House, as amended, on
February 10, 2005.  The text of House-passed H.R. 418 was subsequently added to
H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global
War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, which was introduced by Representative
Jerry Lewis on March 11, 2005, and passed the House, as amended, on March 16,
2005.  H.R. 1268 passed the Senate on April 21, 2005, as amended, on a vote of 99-
0, but did not include the REAL ID Act provisions.  A conference report resolving
differences between the two versions of the bill, H.Rept. 109-72, passed the House
on May 5, 2005 and the Senate on May 10, 2005, before being enacted into law on
May 11, 2005. The version of the REAL ID Act (P.L. 109-13, Division B) ultimately
enacted includes most of the provisions of the REAL ID Act that initially passed the
House (though not those relating to the bond of aliens in removal proceedings),
though some changes were made to certain REAL ID Act provisions.
This report analyzes the major provisions of the REAL ID Act, as enacted,
which, inter alia, (1) modifies the eligibility criteria for asylum and withholding of
removal; (2) limits judicial review of certain immigration decisions; (3) provides
additional waiver authority over laws that might impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads along land borders, including a 14-mile wide fence near San Diego; (4) expands the scope of terror-related activity making an alien inadmissible or deportable, as well as ineligible for certain forms of relief from removal; (5) requires states to meet certain minimum security standards in order for the drivers’ licenses and personal identification cards they issue to be accepted for federal purposes; (6) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into the appropriate aviation security screening database the appropriate background
information of any person convicted of using a false driver’s license for the purpose
of boarding an airplane; and (7) requires the Department of Homeland Security to
study and plan ways to improve U.S. security and improve inter-agency
communications and information sharing, as well as establish a ground surveillance
pilot program.

REAL ID ACT Updates

The June 2009 Immigration Briefings, entitled “Credibility, Burden of Proof, and Corroboration Under the Real ID Act,” 09-06 Immigration Briefing 1 (June 2009), discusses credibility determinations as prescribed by the REAL ID Act of 2005, primarily in the context of asylum relief. The Briefing addresses both burden of proof and corroboration as part of its analysis of credibility under the REAL ID Act. The Briefing begins with a historical background of the REAL ID Act and continues by examining burden-of-proof issues. The Briefing provides an analysis of the standard requirement under the REAL ID Act that aliens applying for relief demonstrate that harm on account of a protected ground be at least one central reason for feared persecution as compared with the pre-REAL ID Act mixed-motive standard. Also discussed in the Briefing are the REAL ID Act credibility amendments, which require that factfinders consider the totality of circumstances when considering credibility as applied to minor inconsistencies in testimony and the heart of the applicant’s claim. Finally, the Briefing discusses language in the REAL ID Act that gives immigration judges the right to demand that an alien produce evidence to corroborate otherwise-credible testimony unless that alien does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain it.

The June Briefing was written by James Feroli, an attorney with the Immigrant and Refugee Appellate Center in Alexandria, Virginia, specializing in immigration appellate issues.
During the 108 Congress, a number of proposals related to immigration and
identification-document security were introduced, some of which were considered
in the context of implementing recommendations made by the National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission)
and enacted pursuant to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 (P.L. 108-458).  At the time that the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act was adopted, some congressional leaders reportedly agreed to revisit certain immigration and document-security issues in the 109th Congress that had been dropped from the final version of the act.
The REAL ID Act of 2005 was first introduced as H.R. 418 by Representative
James Sensenbrenner on January 26, 2005, and passed the House, as amended, on
February 10, 2005.  The text of House-passed H.R. 418 was subsequently added to
H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global
War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, which was introduced by Representative
Jerry Lewis on March 11, 2005, and passed the House, as amended, on March 16,
2005.  H.R. 1268 passed the Senate on April 21, 2005, as amended, on a vote of 99-
0, but did not include the REAL ID Act provisions.  A conference report resolving
differences between the two versions of the bill, H.Rept. 109-72, passed the House
on May 5, 2005 and the Senate on May 10, 2005, before being enacted into law on
May 11, 2005. The version of the REAL ID Act (P.L. 109-13, Division B) ultimately
enacted includes most of the provisions of the REAL ID Act that initially passed the
House (though not those relating to the bond of aliens in removal proceedings),
though some changes were made to certain REAL ID Act provisions.
This report analyzes the major provisions of the REAL ID Act, as enacted,
which, inter alia, (1) modifies the eligibility criteria for asylum and withholding of
removal; (2) limits judicial review of certain immigration decisions; (3) provides
additional waiver authority over laws that might impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads along land borders, including a 14-mile wide fence near San Diego; (4) expands the scope of terror-related activity making an alien inadmissible or deportable, as well as ineligible for certain forms of relief from removal; (5) requires states to meet certain minimum security standards in order for the drivers’ licenses and personal identification cards they issue to be accepted for federal purposes; (6) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into the appropriate aviation security screening database the appropriate background
information of any person convicted of using a false driver’s license for the purpose
of boarding an airplane; and (7) requires the Department of Homeland Security to
study and plan ways to improve U.S. security and improve inter-agency
communications and information sharing, as well as establish a ground surveillance
pilot program.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

“The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was established on December 14, 1950 by the United Nations General Assembly. The agency is mandated to lead and co-ordinate international action to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems worldwide. Its primary purpose is to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees. It strives to ensure that everyone can exercise the right to seek asylum and find safe refuge in another State, with the option to return home voluntarily, integrate locally or to resettle in a third country. It also has a mandate to help stateless people.

In more than five decades, the agency has helped tens of millions of people restart their lives. Today, a staff of some 6,600 people in more than 110 countries continues to help about 34 million persons.”

Taken from the Official UNHCR Web Site.

Bureau of population refugees and migration

Form I-131 for a refugee travel document

Refugee and immigration

New update to be released regarding a refugee placement program from such countries 

What is Refugee Processing?

The U.S. Attorney General has statutory discretionary authority to admit any refugee who is not firmly resettled in a third country, who is determined to be of special humanitarian concern, and who is admissible as an immigrant. The Attorney General has delegated this authority to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (INS). In both overseas refugee processing and domestic asylum proceedings, BCIS has the statutory role of being the decision-maker, determining who meets the requirements for refugee status.

Within the BCIS , the Office of International Affairs, Refugee Branch, located in Washington, D.C., is responsible for oversight and management of the entire BCIS overseas U.S. refugee adjudication program. The overseas refugee processing is assigned by geographic location to the three District Offices, which are located in Rome, Mexico City, and Bangkok. The refugee interviews are conducted by BCIS officers, who are stationed in the three overseas district offices and numerous other sub-offices, and by domestic U.S. asylum officers who travel to overseas locations.

Asylum persecution

Bureau of population refugees and migration

Form I-131 for a refugee travel document

Refugees and immigrants

Refugee Adjustment

If you have been a refugee or held asylum status for at least one year, you may be eligible to change your status to that of a permanent resident.

There is a large package that must be prepared and sent to BCIS . A copy of the letter granting you derivative asylee status either on the basis of having been included on the principal’s original asylum application or on the basis of having been the beneficiary of a petition filed by the principal.

Evidence of one year’s physical presence in the United States. Please keep physical presence evidence to an absolute minimum. Evidence might include a letter of employment, a lease, school enrollment records, or similar documentation, which would cover broad periods of time.

If you wish to travel outside of the U.S. (and return) while your application is being processed, you may use Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, to apply for a refugee travel document. More information may be found at Emergency Travel, and How Do I Get a Travel Document.

Each of the above named applications must be complete in its own right. All required documentation must be submitted with each concurrent application.

If you apply for work authorization and do not receive the document within 90 days of filing the application, you may obtain an interim work authorization document. After 90 days have passed, simply present the receipt that shows you have filed Form I-765 at your local office.

Bureau of population refugees and migration

Central american refugees

Cuban refugee adjustment act

Information regarding asylum refugee and relative petitions to the US be offered by the government 

Asylum: Other Issues

Can I Travel Outside the United States?

If you are applying for asylum and you want to travel outside the United States, you must receive advance permission before you leave the United States in order to return to the United States. This advance permission is called Advance Parole. If you do not apply for Advance Parole before you leave the country, you will abandon your application with the BCIS and you may not be permitted to return to the United States. If your application for asylum is approved, you may apply for a Refugee Travel Document. This document will allow you to travel abroad and return to the United States. For more information, see How Do I Get a Travel Document?.

Will I Get a Work Permit?

Asylum applicants can not apply for employment authorization at the same time they apply for asylum. Rather, you must wait 150 days after the BCIS receives a complete application before you can apply for employment authorization. The BCIS has 30 days to either grant or deny your request for employment. Please see How Do I Get a Work Permit? for more information.

How Can I Find Out About the Status of My Application?

Please contact the BCIS Asylum Office that received your application. You should be prepared to provide the BCIS staff with specific information about your application. Please click here for complete instructions on checking the status of your application. Click here for information on BCIS offices.

How Can I Appeal?

Applicants will be interviewed by an Asylum Officer or an Immigration Judge. The Asylum Officer will either approve your application or refer it to an Immigration Judge for a final decision. If the Immigration Judge denies your asylum application, you will receive a letter telling you how to appeal the decision. Generally, you may appeal within 33 days of receiving the denial. After your appeal form and a required fee are processed, the appeal will be referred to the Board of Immigration Appeals in Washington, D.C.

Adjudication of asylum

Appeal asylum

Asylum agreements

Don´t even think filing fraudulent asylum application!

How to Apply for Asylum?

To be eligible for asylum in the United States, you must ask for asylum at a port-of-entry (airport, seaport or border crossing), or file an application within one year of your arrival in the United States. You may ask later than one year if conditions in your country have changed or if your personal circumstances have changed within the past year prior to your asking for asylum, and those changes of circumstances affected your eligibility for asylum. You may also be excused from the one year deadline if extraordinary circumstance prevented you from filing within the one year period after your arrival, so long as you apply within a reasonable time given those circumstances. You may apply for asylum regardless of your immigration status, meaning that you may apply even if you are illegally in the United States.

In addition, you must qualify for asylum under the definition of “refugee.” Your eligibility will be based on information you provide on your application and during an interview with an Asylum Officer or Immigration Judge. If you have been placed in removal (deportation) proceedings in Immigration Court, an Immigration Judge will hear and decide your case. If you have not been placed in removal proceedings and apply with the BCIS , an Asylum Officer will interview you and decide whether you are eligible for asylum. Asylum Officers will grant asylum, deny asylum or refer the case to an Immigration Judge for a final decision. If an Asylum Officer finds that you are not eligible for asylum and you are in the United States illegally, the Asylum Officer will place you in removal proceedings and refer your application to an Immigration Judge for a final decision. Immigration Judges also decide on removal if an applicant is found ineligible for asylum and is illegally in the United States. If you are in valid immigrant or nonimmigrant status and the Asylum Officer finds that you are not eligible for asylum, the Asylum Officer will send you a notice explaining that the BCIS intends to deny your request for asylum. You will be given an opportunity to respond to that notice before a decision is made on your application.

Adjudication of asylum

Appeal asylum

Asylum seekers

Immigrant children and asylum

 

 

 

 

 

What is the United States Asylum Program and Who Benefits?

Asylum may be granted to people who are already in the United States and are unable or unwilling to return to their home country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. If you are granted asylum, you will be allowed to live and work in the United States. You also will be able to apply for permanent resident status one year after you are granted asylum.

You may include your spouse and any unmarried children under the age of 21 in your own asylum application if your spouse or children are in the United States.

Asylum status and refugee status are closely related. They differ only in the place where a person asks for the status asylum is asked for in the United States; refugee status is asked for outside of the United States. However, all people who are granted asylum must meet the definition of a refugee. If you will apply outside the United States, please see How Do I Get Resettled in the United States as a Refugee?. If you do not qualify for asylum, but fear being tortured upon returning to your homeland, you can apply for consideration under the Torture Convention.

Asylum

Asylum agreements

Asylum applicants

Get a California deportation attorney to help you file asylum

Filing an Asylum Application

(1) An alien does not receive an automatic 1-year extension in which to

file an asylum application following “changed circumstances” under
section 208(a)(2)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §
1158(a)(2)(D) (2006).
(2) Under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii) (2010), the particular circumstances
related to delays in filing an asylum application must be evaluated to determine
whether the application was filed “within a reasonable period given those
‘changed circumstances.’”

Adjudication of asylum

Asylum meaning

Asylum agreements

Get a California deportation Attorney to help you file asylum

Being exiled from the U.S.

Question: Many people from around the world are being persecuted, tortured, imprisoned or killed in their home countries. However, sometimes they do not win. I heard that they may not be allowed to ever get immigration benefits again. Is this true?

Answer: They flee this persecution and apply for asylum in the United States. As a side benefit of applying for asylum, people can get work-permits which sometimes are more important for these people than the actual asylum. In the past, applying for asylum would be abused by thousands of people for this very purpose.

Thus, in 1996, Congress enacted a law which essentially stated that if someone files a frivolous asylum application, they would be permanently barred from ever applying for any immigration benefit for the rest of their lives. This bar would apply if the Immigration Judge made a ruling that the asylum application was frivolous or meritless.

In a recent 9th Circuit decision, Jamal vs. Ashcroft, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 23239 (9th Cir. 2003), the alien first challenged the Immigration Judge’s credibility determination underlying his removal order. The Immigration Judge had made a specific ruling that the alien was not credible. The Immigration Judge identified specific inconsistencies in the alien’s testimony, his expert’s testimony, his brother’s testimony, and between the different witnesses’ testimony. Further, the Immigration Judge ruled that the inconsistencies went to the heart of the asylum application and the alien’s identity, his membership in a persecuted group, and the date he entered the United States.

The Immigration Judge then ruled that the alien knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application and ordered that the alien be removed from the United States. Thus, because of this ruling the alien was barred for life from ever coming back to the United States. The alien appealed both the removal order and the order that the asylum application was frivolous.

Such a finding carries the severe penalty of a permanent bar to immigration relief. Immigration regulations require there to be sufficient opportunity to account for discrepancies or implausibilities.

The Immigration Judge reviewed with Farah the consequences of filing a frivolous asylum application. However, Farah wanted to continue with the application. In the end, the Immigration Judge found that Farah had knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application, but never allowed Farah to explain any of the inconsistencies the Immigration Judge relied upon in making that decision.

The primary issue to be answered is whether the Immigration Judge ruled correctly on whether there was a knowingly frivolous asylum application filed. This issue is of critical importance as it bears on whether persons who might have a colorable asylum claim will step forward and apply. If they feel that they will be adjudged to have filed a knowingly frivolous asylum application, a chilling effect for asylum seekers will occur. They will be afraid to file these applications. Instead of the United States attempting to adjudicate an asylum claims, the United States will be sending out a message to try to exclude valid claims.

The Immigration Judge concluded that Farah’s asylum application was so inconsistent that it rose to the level of being knowingly frivolous under the immigration laws.

In this case, the Immigration Judge found two specific examples of fabrication that were relevant to his decision: the petitioner’s entry date and his travel history. In his decision, the IJ held that it was clear that the respondent did not enter in New York on January 24, 1999, in the manner in which he stated and that he has fabricated that portion of his claim. The Immigration Judge further stated that he has also been untruthful as to whether he was in Nairobi, Kakuma, London, England or any other place before he came to the United States.

This court stated that Farah had ample opportunities to explain the discrepancies that led to the adverse credibility finding. For example, discrepancies in his father’s name and in his clan identity. To support the finding of frivolousness, however, the Immigration Judge relied with particularity on different discrepancies between what Farah said and the extrinsic evidence. Farah was not given an adequate opportunity to address those additional discrepancies before the ruling on frivolousness was made. In sum, the evidence presented did not allow a proper opportunity for Farah to explain all discrepancies in the record. Therefore, the court overturned the decision of the Immigration Judge that the application was knowingly frivolous.

Even though the Court did not reverse the decision denying the asylum, they did reverse the permanent bar to future filings with immigration. Now, aliens with colorable asylum claims will not be afraid to present those claims to the United States.