ASYLUM LIAISON QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS September 27, 2011

Transcription

1 ASYLUM LIAISON QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS September 27, 2011 Representative from the asylum office: Emilia Bardini, Director. 1. Could you provide us with a contact list for the San Francisco Asylum Office? Attached is a sample the contact list that the LAAO provides to AILA. The AO will provide a list of supervisors and contact information for them. Generally SFAO policy is not to give out individual officer contact information, although if the individual asylum officer wishes to do so, it s fine. Currently the SFAO has a staff of 50, including 26 asylum officers and six supervisors. This is down from 37 asylum officers. 2. You ve provided the following s for case and scheduling follow-up. Are these the preferred way of contact the AO in such cases? Specific Case Inquiries: asylum_sf_inquiries@uscis.dhs.gov Interview Scheduling Issues: asylum_sf_scheduling@uscis.dhs.gov Yes. Please use the above s. In an emergency, or if there s a lack of follow-up, then mail Emilia Bardini directly. Emilia.M.Bardini@dhs.gov. Note, Emilia actually opens up the inquiries , so it is the same as ing her. Note that Lilian Rendelman is the supervisory scheduling clerk (and we should be getting her information with the list of SFAO supervisors). 3. How should an attorney do an address change with the AO? Copy or original of AR-11 to the AO? Letter to the AO? Is an AR-11 to USCIS by itself sufficient? It is best to send a letter to the asylum office. The CIS address change doesn t interface with the SFAO. A regular letter is fine. It doesn t need to be an AR What would you say is the average time from interview to decision? At what point should an attorney inquire about case status? For circuit sites like Seattle, it generally takes one week to write up a decision for supervisor review, and if there are no security or name check issues, then a decision should be made within 30 days of the interview. At 60 days, you could write to the inquiries above.

2 5. What is the procedure for ensuring that a person who has withdrawn their application and left the country is not put into proceedings? One member reports seeing several cases where the applicants filed for asylum and then decided to abandon the application and return home (some before and some after the interview but before decision). They all sent withdrawal letters to the AO, some of them included their plane tickets and boarding pass, and one of them even did an NSEERS checkout on the day of leaving. The AO referred the cases months after they left the US, resulting in in absentia orders. It seems that in the affirmative asylum procedure manual, AO s are asked to check their system to see if the person has extended (changed) status etc. before referring the case or issuing NOID. But what exactly is the procedure when the person told the AO that they are abandoning and leaving on a certain date? Does the AO only acknowledge the withdrawal part and disregard all the information about applicants leaving? This should not be the case, and notify Emilia if this happens. The SFAO should close out the affirmative asylum application in this case. If this issue is caught before an in absentia order is issued by the IJ, then the SFAO can work with ICE Chief Counsel to have the case terminated as the NTA was improvidently issued. 6. Is there a procedure in place for reopening credible fear and reasonable fear interviews? Is the AO willing to revisit a credible fear denial when the attorney can document problems with the interview? One member reports seeing a problematic credible fear denial, out of another AO jurisdiction, but for a person who was since released from detention and who is now living in the jurisdiction of the SFAO. Apparently the AO doing the credible fear interview did not believe a Somali refugee born in Kenya, and appeared to fail to ask about FGM as well. Any suggestions for how this issue can be addressed? There is no written procedure. The best practice is to send a letter to Emilia addressing the problems with the credible fear interview. Follow-up question: If we file an I-589 and get an interview, is the credible fear interview issue moot? No, the credible fear will come up at the interview. 7. What is the timeline for credible fear and reasonable fear interviews? Can you describe the role of the attorney in the interviews, and confirm that attorneys of record should be given notice of these interviews.

3 There is a 14 day timeline for credible fear interviews, and no timeline for reasonable fear interviews. In a small percentage of cases, there are delays due to security checks. Sometimes the SFAO doesn t make the 14 day deadline due to volume. For example, there were recently 50 credible fear cases transferred to the NW detention center from the Southern Border. Part of the problem is that NW detention center policy is to require two government personnel in an interview in other words, another agency staff besides the asylum officer. If there s only one asylum officer, then usually an ICE officer must be present. This is a problem, as there are often not enough detention officers to sit it on interviews. Emilia noted that this does not appear to be a requirement in other parts of the US, and members present noted that this is a topic for follow-up with ICE liaison. Also, the interviews are in the pods, so that the guards/deportation officers can have a view of the participants. Members noted this can be problematic as well, given privacy concerns. Attorneys are permitted to be present at the interviews and should receive notice. 8. Some members report the EAD clock being stopped on referral of a case to Immigration Court. Can you confirm that, except for cases where there s a no show for the appointment or biometrics, the EAD clock should continue to run on a referral/issuance of the NTA? Are there other circumstances other than a no-show where the clock would stop when the case is referred to an IJ? The EAD clock can be stopped for failure to comply with biometrics, failure to pick up the decision (in SF, not an issue in Seattle), and for a no show. The clock should not otherwise stop on referral, and a one-year issue would not stop the clock, given that this is an issue for the IJ to decide. The Asylum Office fills out an EOIR form on referral. This EOIR referral sheet is somewhat complicated/hard to follow, so occasionally an AO clerk puts an x in the wrong spot and can erroneously cause the EAD clock to stop. In these cases, contact Emilia to correct. 9. Can you give AILA members some guidance on requests for prosecutorial discretion; for example, if a principal dies, and the derivative is facing being referred to the Immigration Court. How should a request for prosecutorial discretion be made? Who does it go to? Is there a timeline? What kind of cases would prosecutorial discretion apply to, and does the AO grant it without request in certain cases? Emilia was somewhat confused by the question, and so the example was given of when a principal applicant dies, and an included derivative might be facing referral to the Immigration Court. Emilia

4 didn t really have any guidance on this. She says that they don t really see these kinds of cases, but you could follow-up with her. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS RAISED AT THE MEETING 10. Can a person with an approved I-730 get an I-94? (To USCIS) Yes. Make an INFOPASS appointment. Bring the proof of the I-730 approval and two photos. 11. How should we address rescheduling delays? Rescheduling shouldn t be a problem, given that there are only about 100 cases pending in Seattle. Send an to the scheduling address above. 12. What kinds of cases go to HQ? Contiguous territory (Canada and Mexico); DV; gender; cases with notoriety. 13. Has the nunc pro tunc asylum process changed? (The nunc pro tunc process is where a derivative asylee files a new I-589 because USCIS considers them to be statutorily ineligible to adjust to LPR status due to a change in the relationship with the principal, e.g. divorce, death of the principal, marriage of the derivative child, or the principal became a citizen. Once the new I- 589 is approved, the derivative asylee can adjust to LPR status). Not really. Send in a new application to the service center or the SFAO directly. About 90% are granted, but the AO can interview on the merits. Emilia identified derivatives who haven t lived in the same country as the principal or who may not have any fear (evidenced by travel back home) as problematic cases. 14. What s happening with the Sekhon cases? [Attorneys at the Sekhon law office in Sacramento were convicted of filing numerous fraudulent asylum cases; CIS is investigating these cases and issuing Notices of Intent to Revoke the asylum status.] There should be asylum rescission interviews in these cases starting in October. Currently they re at HQ, as CIS counsel has to sign off on the process. There is a very detailed letter that will be sent to the asylee explaining why CIS is proposing to revoke the grant, such as the evidentiary conflicts, fraudulent documentation, boilerplate stories matching other cases. SFAO recognizes that some of the Sekhon cases

5 may be bonafide, and that not all will have their asylee status terminated. The asylees should bring evidence supporting their asylum claim to the revocation interview. 15. Presentation of declarations of applicants at affirmative asylum interviews: Because of preparation issues for the officers, SFAO wants all applicant declarations at least ten days prior to interview. Where the applicant brings a declaration to the interview, the case could be rescheduled. 16. Long waits for interviews/interview scheduling issues. Emilia noted that they are planning on making a change to require all client declarations to be filed 10 days prior to the asylum interview, in order to reduce delays. Emilia states that late document submissions, and particularly late submission of declarations, is one of the main reasons why interviews get delayed as the AO must take time to review the declaration prior to the interview. The number of interviews scheduled for one day has been reduced from 6 to 4. The AO will start using the white board at CIS they have permission to do so, though Emilia had some concerns about confidentiality. AILA explained that the individuals in the waiting room have no idea who is being called for an asylum interview, versus any other type of interview.