Must Prove Past Harm Occurred or Future Harm Likely to Occur

      To obtain asylum, foreign nationals must demonstrate that they suffered past harm or are more likely than not to suffer harm in the future if returned to their countries.  This balancing of interests occurs often in the law, which is why the symbol is a woman holding a balance.  Which side weighs more, likely to be harmed or not likely to be harmed?
      Blandon Law organizes evidence including country condition reports to tip the scales in favor of our clients.
  In a recent case -- Sirbu v. Holder -- the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reminded an immigration judge of the correct standard of proof.  As demonstrated by that opinion, even experienced judges sometimes get confused.  Foreign nationals do NOT need to provide evidence that "compels a finding" that they suffered past harm.

Get a Paper Copy of Your I-94

       On April 30, 2013, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) stopped providing paper Form I-94s, the white or green form which shows the date and length of authorized stay.  Now, many foreign nationals will only get a stamp in their passport.
      Blandon Law STRONGLY recommends that all foreign nationals go to the website www.cbp.gov/I94 and print out an electronic record of their admission.  This way, foreigners will be able to prove they applied for asylum within one year after arrival.  In addition, having a paper printout may make it easier to get other benefits including a driver's license and a Social Security number.  Both of those government agencies -- Division of Motor Vehicles and Social Security Administration -- are still requiring PAPER proof of admission despite the change in CBP's policy.

Dual Citizens CANNOT Obtain Asylum

     The Board of Immigration Appeals recently issued a case recently stating that persons who MAY have dual citizenship are not eligible for asylum. In that case, the foreigner was a Venezuelan and his father was a citizen of Spain.  The applicant was not a citizen of Spain.  Because the government showed proof that the asylum applicant is eligible to become a citizen of Spain himself (and he had no fear of harm there), however, his asylum was denied.
     This is a drastic change from the way the law was formerly interpreted.  Blandon Law has won asylum cases for dual citizens (Venezuelan and Italian) in the past, but that seems more difficult now.

Despite Improvement in Country Condition, Asylum is Possible

     Another unpublished decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals confirmed that asylum can be won even if the conditions in the homeland improve.  Blandon Law can read these decisions because our attorneys are members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.  When other attorneys win asylum cases, we know about it.  That improves the chance of winning for our clients.
     In this case, the foreign national was from Liberia.  His entire family was murdered when he was 13 years old.  Although the political situation in Liberia has changed, and the applicant no longer fears returning to his country, asylum was granted because of the SEVERITY of the past harm he suffered.

Reform Needed in Detention of Asylees

      A new report by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom finds that the government is detaining asylum seekers under inappropriate conditions.  The full report and other information can be found by clicking here.   Importantly, the detention is contrary to the reforms announced by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
     Blandon Law currently has a client detained in Georgia who is an internationally-recognized human rights defender.  Although the Service has determined that she has a credible fear if returned to her homeland, the government has not released her.  This report is just the type of information Blandon Law will use to obtain her release.

BREAKING NEWS: Asylum Clock Lawsuit Settled

     The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security have agreed to settle a nationwide class action lawsuit.  It was filed to challenge the government's denial of work authorization to asylum seekers who have been waiting six months or more for a decision on their asylum applications.

     If approved by a federal judge, this agreement will help ensure that asylum seekers, who have fled persecution in their home countries, are not unlawfully prevented from working and supporting their families while the government decides their cases.
     To read the full press release, click here.

Were You Denied Asylum Because of the One-Year Deadline?

     Foreign nationals who wish to seek asylum in the United States generally must file their applications within one year after arrival.  If they do not, the Citizenship and Immigration Service may refer the case to an Immigration Court Judge to see if an exception to that deadline applies.

     As part of the comprehensive immigration reform efforts this year, the advocacy group Human Rights First is trying to change that law.  If you were denied asylum due to the deadline -- and your case was exceptionally strong otherwise -- please contact the group.  More information about them is available by clicking here.

Sue to Get the Notes of the Asylum Interview

      The notes taken by the Asylum Officer are extremely important, but rarely made public to the foreign national.  If the asylum case is denied with the Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS), the government attorneys rely heavily on those notes to prove their case.  For example, if the Asylum Officer wrote that the foreign national does not remember specific dates about events in 2009, the government attorney will probably ask about those events during the Immigration Court hearing.
     It is important for foreign nationals, and their attorneys, to see those Asylum Officer notes because they are so important to the outcome of the court hearing -- and the success of the asylum case.  CIS, when it turns over the foreign nationals' files (in response to a Freedom of Information Act request), however, rarely provides those notes.    
    So, let's sue them.  Foreign nationals can sue the government on an individual basis if they are denied this important information.

Best Way to Win Even if Conditions in Country Have Improved

     Usually, asylum applicants find themselves without the chance for an approval if the conditions in their countries improve.  For example, those harmed by the Shining Path guerrillas in Peru might have a very difficult time obtaining asylum because that terrorist group is no longer as pervasive as it once was.
    
     Fortunately, if foreign nationals suffered harm in the past, there are TWO ways that they still may be eligible for protection in the United States.  This was highlighted by a recent unpublished Board of Immigration Appeals case about a Romanian citizen.  The first way is if the foreign national demonstrates "compelling reasons" for being unwilling to return to the home country.  This is due to the severity of the past harm suffered; the foreign national may have depression, anxiety and emotional suffering about returning. 
     The other way to obtain asylum, even if the situation in the homeland has improved, is if there is a reasonable possibility that the foreign national will suffer "other serious harm" if returned.  Note, there does not have to be a likelihood of harm, just a reasonable possibility.  Also importantly, the harm does not have to be based on a protected ground.  Reports that the general population suffers from poverty or civil strife would be sufficient.
    For the best shot at a life in the U.S., talk to an immigration attorney about your personal circumstances.

Police: must be useless, not just inefficient

      Foreign nationals must demonstrate that the government of their countries are UNABLE or UNWILLING to control the perpetrators.  This is a basic requirement for an asylum applicant to prove, according to a recent decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Click here to read it.
      To win asylum, foreigners must demonstrate that they cannot be protected from suffering.  In the case before the Eighth Circuit, the Peruvian police arrested suspects believed to have attacked the asylum applicant, but were not able to convict them.  Unfortunately, even ineffective or corrupt police forces are seen -- by our government -- as proof that foreign nationals can be protected by their own governments.  Thus, the asylum case was denied.
     Fortunately, where the police force is completely unable to protect its citizens, asylum can be granted.  Such was the case for many Colombians.  The Department of State reports -- which Blandon Law used as proof in Immigration Court -- specifically stated that the government could not protect its citizens against the hyper-armed FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.
    

Judges Must Use Evidence When Determining Truth

     Before an asylum case can be denied as not credible, the Immigration Judges must explain their denial without relying on stereotypes or the country report by the Department of State.
     This month, in March 2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reminded Immigration Judges that they must rely on evidence.  Click here for the full opinion.  The Eleventh Circuit is the court just below the Supreme Court;  it hears appeals on asylum cases after they have been denied by both Immigration Judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
     In this case, the Immigration Judge denied the asylum case of a Chinese woman, in part, because it "didn't seem plausible" to him.  The Eleventh Circuit correctly reminded Immigration Judges that -- when they decide whether foreign nationals are telling the truth -- that decision MUST be based on evidence.  An Immigration Judge's "bald assertion that a given account is implausible does not necessarily make it so."
     The Eleventh Circuit also reminded Immigration Judges that they cannot rely BLINDLY on State Department reports.  The attorneys for the Dept. of Homeland Security often state that an asylum applicant's story is not true because it is inconsistent with their official report.  This case shows that common practice should FAIL in court. 

Two Ways the Death of Chavez Might Help Asylees

     Lately, Venezuelans ask me how the changes in the government might impact their chances of obtaining asylum in the United States.  They are specifically referring to the death of President Hugo Chavez and the elections that are expected soon.
     My answer is either it will affect your case dramatically or not at all.
  If Venezuela's new government is nothing more than same old, same old, the U.S. government is not likely to view the death as a changed country condition.  On the other hand, if the death of President Chavez becomes the first in a series of episodes which mark deteriorating country conditions, foreign nationals may benefit in two ways.
     First, applicants may apply AFTER the one-year deadline if they can demonstrate that a changed country condition materially effects eligibility for filing.  For example, if Venezuelans in the U.S. receive death threats because of a belief that they did not appropriately mourn the president's death (by closing their Venezuelan businesses abroad for the week, let's say), these persons should now file an asylum claim based on imputed political opinion.  This is so even if the Venezuelans have been in the U.S. for over a year.
     The second -- and perhaps most dramatic way -- that changed country conditions affect asylum cases is that denied applications may have a new chance at victory.  This occurs when the prior country conditions were not so harmful that the applicant could demonstrate a well-founded fear of harm, but now -- due to changes in the country -- fear of harm is reasonable.  In this case, Blandon Law attorneys file a Motion to Reopen based on this new evidence.  When the case is reopened, we present the new evidence and allow the Immigration Judge to rule.  Asylum cases are usually won after motions to reopen because the judge has already demonstrated a predisposition to believing the applicant, which was demonstrated by granting the motion.

18 Year Filing Delay: No Problem

      In an unpublished asylum case, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that a foreign national could file for asylum despite an 18-year filing delay.  Normally, asylum cases should be filed within one year after entry into the United States. 
      There are many exceptions to the filing deadline, however.  At Blandon Law, we have also won cases long after the filing deadline.  The longest delay was 16 years, based on the foreign national not even knowing she was Colombian until she tried to apply for a drivers license.  Her parents brought her into the U.S. when she was less than one year old and did not tell her the truth.

LGBT, Native Americans Are Protected by VAWA

      The Violence Against Women Act finally cleared in Congress and will be signed by President Obama shortly.  An article in Huff Post Politics details the political fight that resulted in this law which protects victims of domestic violence.
      The two new groups that will be protected under the law include Native Americans and members of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community.  Immigrant men and women will also receive protections under VAWA, as before.