Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Asylum Interviews

by

prison-370112_1280A new lawsuit filed by a man detained in San Diego, California, is challenging the controversial practice of courthouse arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) taking place in recent months. The case could offer critical insight into the government’s approach in making these arrests. (A.M. v. Larose (3:25-cv-01412))

The man identified in court filings as A.M. is seeking asylum in the United States after being subjected to torture in his home country from his human rights advocacy. On June 3, he arrived for what he believed would be a routine immigration court hearing but was shocked to find that the judge had dismissed his case and ICE agents were waiting outside, ready to arrest him and take him to Otay Mesa’s Detention Facility to eventually be deported.

Unfortunately, A.M.’s case is not unique. In recent months, the Trump administration has enforced a controversial policy in immigration courts to expedite deportations by instructing judges to swiftly dismiss cases, subjecting individuals to expedited removal without giving them a meaningful opportunity to contest the government’s claims or consult attorneys.

This approach, detailed in a May 30 directive from the Executive Office for Immigration Review, encourages judges to grant oral motions to dismiss without the standard 10-day response period, effectively eliminating opportunities for individuals to contest their cases. Once dismissed, individuals are immediately eligible for expedited removal, making it possible for ICE officers to arrest them.

Continue reading

by

court-5665886_1280
On Wednesday, May 28, 2025, a federal judge from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a nationwide court order lifting the Trump administration’s suspension of adjudications for immigration benefit applications submitted by noncitizens who were lawfully paroled into the United States under certain categorical parole programs implemented during the Biden administration.

Those affected by the suspensions were parolees in the following programs:

  • Military Parole in Place (MPIP) for members of the U.S. armed forces to petition their relatives for parole
  • Uniting for Ukraine (U4U), for Ukrainian citizens and their family members to apply for advanced authorization to travel to the United States to request parole for up to two years and apply for employment authorization with USCIS
  • Noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) authorizing parole requests of up to two years, and the ability to apply for employment authorization from USCIS
  • Family Reunification Parole (FRP) programs permitting individuals from Colombia, Cuba, Guatemala, Ecuador, Haiti, Honduras, and El Salvador to receive advanced authorization to travel to the United States while their family-based immigrant visas are pending.
  • Central American Minors Program (CAM) for individuals from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala lawfully present in the United States to request immediate relatives not present in the United States to be granted access to the Refugee Admissions Program.

Continue reading

by

poster-7297156_1280

In President Trump’s latest legal battles, a federal judge from the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts has dealt a blow to the administration’s plans to fast-track the deportations of thousands of undocumented migrants with final orders of removal.

Today, federal judge Brian Murphy issued a nationwide temporary restraining order immediately blocking U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from deporting migrants from the United States to countries with which they have no existing relationship, without first providing them written notice and a meaningful opportunity to claim relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) for immigrants fearing persecution.

This decision was made in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of migrants challenging ICE policies that expedite the removal of undocumented immigrants released from detention to third countries.

The judge’s court order specifically prohibits the U.S. government from:

“Removing any individual subject to a final order of removal from the United States to a third country, i.e., a country other than the country designated for removal in immigration proceedings, UNLESS and UNTIL [the government] provide[s] that individual, and their respective immigration counsel, if any, with written notice of the third country to where they may be removed, and UNTIL Defendants provide a meaningful opportunity for that individual to submit an application for CAT protection to the immigration court, and if any such application is filed, UNTIL that individual receives a final agency decision on any such application.”

Continue reading

by

smile-5621670_1280-1On Tuesday June 4, 2024, President Joe Biden’s rumored executive action on immigration was unveiled by the White House.

Among its sweeping provisions, effective Wednesday June 5, 2024, the order will limit the number of migrants who can claim asylum at ports of entry along the southern U.S. border, while there are high levels of illegal crossings at the southern border.

Specifically, migrants seeking asylum will be turned away at the border when the seven-day average of daily border crossings exceeds 2,500 daily encounters between ports of entry. Since the number of encounters currently exceeds this figure, the order will go into effect immediately.

This means that starting June 5th U.S. border officials will stop conducting credible fear interviews for asylum claims and will instead quickly expel migrants seeking asylum at the border.

Migrants who are expelled under the order will receive a minimum five-year bar on reentry to the United States and potentially be subject to criminal prosecution.

The government will only accept asylum claims at the border if 14 days have passed, and the number of daily encounters has declined to 1,500 migrants or less at U.S. ports of entry.

Apart from unaccompanied minors, the order applies to all noncitizens, encountered along the southern border, irrespective of their country of origin.

What does the order do?

This executive order will temporarily suspend the entry of noncitizens who cross the border without prior authorization, or a legal basis to do so, including those claiming asylum at the border during periods of high border crossings.

Can migrants still claim asylum through scheduled appointments on the Customs and Border Protection’s One App?

Yes. The executive order does not prohibit migrants from using the CBP One app to make appointments at the border where they are able to claim asylum. The executive order only prohibits “unscheduled” asylum claims at the border.

Continue reading

by

politics-2361943_1280News reports from the Associated Press and other media outlets indicate that the Biden administration is on the verge of signing an executive order that could halt asylum requests at the U.S. Mexico border, and introduce new admissions quotas by invoking the President’s authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

As the U.S. presidential election draws closer, the Biden administration has been looking for new ways to appease voters and get tougher on immigration.

President Biden aims to discourage migration by controlling the entrance of undocumented immigrants claiming asylum at the border.

The administration is considering capping the number of daily border crossings to 4,000 over a week, and is weighing whether this limit would include asylum-seekers arriving to the U.S. who have made appointments ahead of time on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s mobile app. There are currently 1,450 such appointments per day.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, government officials divulged that migrants who arrive after the border reaches a certain threshold may be subject to automatic removal in a process similar to deportation. Those removed would not be able to return to the United States easily.

Republicans have argued that the President has not done enough to stop the flow of illegal immigration to the U.S. which has led the administration to become much more conservative on immigration than ever before.

Continue reading

by

justice-6570152_1280

The Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department recently announced a new plan to expedite immigration court proceedings for asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the United States without lawful status.

On May 16th senior administration officials from the Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department made it known to the public that a new Recent Arrivals (RA) docket process will allow undocumented immigrants to resolve their immigration cases more expeditiously – within a period of 180 days.

Under the RA Docket process, DHS will place certain noncitizen single adults on the RA Docket, and EOIR adjudicators will prioritize the adjudication of these cases.

The RA Docket will operate in five cities: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City. Immigration judges will aim to render final decisions within 180 days, although the time to make a decision in any particular case will remain subject to case-specific circumstances and procedural protections, including allowing time for noncitizens to seek representation where needed.

Continue reading

by

smile-5621670_1280

Ahead of the U.S. presidential election, President Biden is considering the rollout of a set of new executive actions aimed at curbing illegal migration at the U.S. southern border and measures that would create new obstacles for asylum applicants. Individuals speaking on condition of anonymity have said these policies could come as soon as March 7th as part of President Biden’s State of the Union speech.

According to reports by insiders of the Biden administration, the proposals under discussion would use a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to stop migrants from requesting asylum at U.S. ports of entry once a certain number of illegal crossings has been reached.

While the exact details of the executive order are still unclear, the proposal would likely carve out several exceptions for unaccompanied minors and those who meet the requirements of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. A similar proposal was previously discussed in the U.S. Senate as part of a border deal earlier this month.

To further appease conservative voters, the Biden administration is also considering implementing policies that would make it harder for migrants to pass the initial screening of the asylum interview process. Under these proposals, the administration would elevate the “credible fear standard” of the asylum process, thereby narrowing the pool of applicants eligible to seek asylum. Those who cannot meet the elevated standard, would be swiftly deported.

Continue reading

by

 “If we learn nothing else from this tragedy, we learn that life is short and there is no time for hate.”

Sandy Dahl, wife of Flight 93 United Airlines Captain Jason Dahl

In remembrance of the lives lost on September 11, 2001 welcome-905562_1280

In this post, we would like to share with our readers that starting September 13th the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will require affirmative asylum applicants to bring interpreters to asylum interviews, if they are not fluent in the English language, or would like to have their interview conducted in a language other than English.

USCIS has said that affirmative asylum applicants who need an interpreter, but fail to bring one, or who bring an interpreter that is not fluent in English or a language they speak, in such case the immigration official may consider this a failure to appear if the applicant does not establish good cause.

Additionally, USCIS may dismiss the asylum application or refer the asylum application to an immigration judge.

Interpreter Requirements

The following requirements apply to interpreters present at USCIS interviews:

The interpreter must be fluent in English and a language you speak fluently and must be at least 18 years old. The interpreter cannot be:

  • Your attorney or accredited representative;
  • A witness testifying on your behalf;
  • A representative or employee of the government of your country of nationality (or, if you are stateless, your country of last habitual residence); or
  • An individual with a pending asylum application who has not yet been interviewed.

Continue reading