NEW IMMIGRATION ASYLUM RULE DENIES DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND LIMITS LEGAL COUNSEL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 鈥� An asylum screening聽聽proposed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) denies asylum seekers their due process rights by limiting their ability to properly represent themselves, find legal representation, and present their asylum claim. While the proposed rule seeks to shorten the timeline to reach a decision on asylum cases, it does so at the expense of due process.听
The proposed聽聽(IFR) amends regulations governing the procedures for determining certain protection claims and available parole procedures for asylum seekers subject to expedited removal and found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture. As a result, streamlined removal procedures will now occur after an individual has passed their Credible Fear Interview and when DHS鈥� United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) refers noncitizens whose applications are not granted to DOJ鈥檚 Executive Office for Immigration Review.听
鈥淯nder U.S. law, claiming asylum at the border is legal,鈥� said Stephanie M. Alvarez-Jones, staff attorney of the Southern Poverty Law Center. 鈥淧eople facing serious human rights violations have the right to seek protection, and the United States has the obligation not to return people to where they would be at risk of persecution or death. In the name of 鈥榚fficiency,鈥� the government鈥檚 unrealistic immigration rules fail to protect the due process protections asylum seekers鈥� are afforded.鈥澛�
The 人兽性交 submitted comments to DHS and DOJ urging the proposed rule be revised. The comments, in part,聽read:听
鈥淪IFI鈥檚 [Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative] ability to provide competent representation to individuals detained across the Southeast will be severely compromised if the asylum seekers it represents are subject to the IFR鈥檚 rocket docket. In each of the examples included below, SIFI鈥檚 client, detained during their individual hearing, had at least five months between the time they arrived at the United States and their individual hearing. In each example, these months were critical in securing and preparing the evidence necessary to establish each asylum seeker鈥檚 claim for relief. Despite our best efforts, the logical and natural result of the IFR鈥檚 streamlined procedures would be a decrease in the number of people SIFI could represent.鈥澛�
鈥淭his proposed rule would be nearly impossible to comply with, especially for those in detention, and since Black and Brown asylum seekers are detained at higher rates, the rule would disproportionately impact Black and Brown immigrants,鈥� stated Matt Boles, direct services attorney of the Southern Poverty Law Center鈥檚 Immigrant Justice Project. 鈥淭he government has chosen speed over ensuring asylum seekers are not returned to harm.鈥澛�
鈥淭he Interim Final Rule would dramatically change adjudication procedures for asylum seekers. The 人兽性交 welcomes several of the changes included in the IFR, but has serious concerns about the processes and timelines the IFR creates. The Departments鈥� stated desire for efficiency should not lead to straining asylum seekers and legal representatives to the limit, essentially eliminating the time asylum seekers need to properly prepare their case and retain counsel. To be sure, the United States needs an asylum system that is efficient, but that system must also be fair, reliable, and contain sufficient safeguards of individuals鈥� due process rights. The IFR does not promote such a system. The 人兽性交 strongly urges the Departments to rescind, or substantially rewrite, the unethical and legally deficient parts of this IFR.鈥澛�
A copy of 人兽性交鈥檚 comments is available聽here.听
