To address the issue of backlog of over a million asylum cases, the U.S. Department of Justice recently issued a work guideline, clearly stating that for asylum cases with legal defects, if immigration officials believe there are direct reasons for denial, the application can be terminated without a court hearing.
Last Friday, on April 11, a memo issued by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) of the Department of Justice pointed out that EOIR adjudicators have a responsibility to effectively manage the cases they handle. However, currently, there is a lack of clear guidance for adjudicators to pre-deny asylum applications with legal flaws.
This may be one of the reasons leading to the backlog of immigration cases. In the fourth quarter of last year, there were nearly 4 million backlogged cases, with asylum cases accounting for 1.5 million.
The memo proposed that in deportation proceedings, foreign nationals have the responsibility to prove their eligibility for any form of relief or protection to avoid deportation; if they fail to establish preliminary eligibility, such applications can usually be terminated in advance.
Current regulations only require a hearing to be held when processing asylum applications to “resolve disputed factual issues” but do not mandate a hearing in cases without factual disputes. This allows immigration judges to terminate applications without a hearing once they determine certain reasons warrant denial.
The guideline pointed out that case law also supports this principle. Adjudicators often pre-deny asylum applications due to various legal defects.
The guideline requires adjudicators to take all appropriate actions to promptly process cases with no viable legal avenue for relief from deportation. Additionally, they may consider pre-approving asylum applications with legal flaws, but the ultimate decision-making authority still belongs to the presiding adjudicator.
Upon the issuance of this new work guideline, although it may quickly increase the number of deportation orders and reduce case backlog, there are concerns from the public that genuine applicants facing persecution may be denied, putting them at risk of life-threatening situations if deported. Nevertheless, even if an asylum case is denied, applicants can still appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) or subsequently apply for a stay of deportation to seek further legal recourse.
Regarding the policy changes in asylum review, Dr. Zheng Cunzhu from the Los Angeles Global Law Firm told reporters that since the beginning of this year, they have encountered seven to eight cases with legal defects. Some Chinese individuals who did not timely file asylum applications upon arriving in the United States and kept delaying ended up with deportation orders without any hearing.
Others were more fortunate. A refugee applicant recalled that during the hearing, the judge directly told him, “I believe your asylum case does not meet the requirements for asylum, or you have not diligently provided evidence to prove your eligibility for asylum. I am inclined to deny it, but still giving you one to two months to see if you can provide any supporting evidence.”
Some individuals did face political or religious persecution in China, but their asylum applications in the U.S. were denied due to legal defects. When Dr. Zheng traveled to another city, he heard about many such cases in that area; after research, he found various situations contributing to these outcomes.
Some cases were due to errors made by immigration judges, as judges are also prone to making mistakes; these situations can be resolved through appeals. Some were because of ineffective lawyer representation, especially by “American” lawyers who may not understand Chinese laws or the fundamental reasons behind the persecution by the CCP. Some applicants failed to properly preserve evidence of persecution; although they participated in many protests after coming abroad, they did not document them.
Another situation involved individuals encountering irresponsible lawyers or intermediaries. “They didn’t even know the names of those lawyers or where their offices were, yet they transferred money to them. When problems arose, the other party blocked them on WeChat, and they couldn’t even locate the person,” Dr. Zheng explained, noting that some people were swindled out of tens of thousands of dollars.
“Never opt for cheap choices and turn to unqualified individuals without offices, or even those introduced by friends whom you haven’t even met; this is very risky,” Dr. Zheng warned. ◇