ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Recent Blogs Posts

  1. ICE arrests 32 Sex Offenders in Long Island During Operation SOAR

    by , 08-08-2017 at 10:47 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    The following is a press release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement:

    NEW YORK – Officers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrested 32 convicted sexual predators during a 10-day period, ending Aug. 3 in Long Island in an enforcement effort dubbed, “Operation SOAR” (Sex Offender Alien Removal).

    In the course of Operation SOAR, ERO officers apprehended 32 individuals with past criminal convictions ranging from sexual abuse to attempted rape. Of those arrested, 12 are registered sexual offenders. Each was taken into custody and is currently being detained pending the completion of removal proceedings.


    "ICE’s continuing commitment to making our communities safer is underscored by operations like this one targeting sexual offenders. These actions focus our resources on the most egregious criminals and promote public safety in the communities in which we live and work,” said Thomas R. Decker, field office director for New York. “ERO officers are out there every day enforcing immigration law with targeted enforcement actions. ICE will not waiver in its promise to arrest and remove criminal aliens from our neighborhoods.”


    Among those arrested were:


    • A 24-year-old Salvadoran national who was arrested and charged criminally with first degree sexual abuse and sexual contact with a victim less than 11 years old. Criminal charges are still pending. The victim in this case is a 4-year-old female. He was arrested in Wyandanch, Aug. 3 and will remain in ICE custody pending removal from the United States.
    • A 36-year-old national of Guatemala with a prior conviction of second degree rape and endangering the welfare of a child. The victim in this case was a 13 year old female. He was sentenced to six months in jail and 10 years of probation supervision. The registered Level 1 sexual offender was arrested in Brentwood on Aug. 2 and will remain in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.
    • A 32-year-old Honduran man with prior convictions of criminal sexual act in the third degree, forcible touching, endangering the welfare of a child, and sexual abuse in the third degree. He was sentenced to 10 years of probation supervision. The victim in this case was a 15 year-old female. He also has prior convictions of driving while intoxicated. This registered Level 1 sex offender was arrested in Brentwood, Aug. 1 and will remain in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.
    • A 38-year-old citizen and national of Ecuador with a prior conviction of the sexual misconduct with a 15 year-old female victim. He was arrested in Central Islip, Aug. 1 and will remain in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.
    • A 55-year-old Salvadoran man convicted of second degree rape and sentenced to one year in jail. The victim in this case was 12 years old. He was arrested in Copiague, July 27 and will remain in ICE custody pending removal from the United States.
    • A 21 year-old Haitian man with a prior conviction of two counts of promote a sexual performance by a child less than 17 years of age and sentenced to 10 years of probation supervision. The victims in this case were both 15 years of age. He was arrested in Riverhead, July 27 and will remain in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.
    • A 36-year-old Salvadoran man convicted of third degree rape and sentenced to 10 years of probation supervision. The victim in this case was 15 years old. He was arrested in Glen Cove, July 25 and will remain in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.
    • A 46-year-old Salvadoran national with a prior conviction of endangering the welfare of a child - sentenced to three years’ probation. The original charge was sexual abuse in the first degree: sexual contact with individual less than 11 years old. The victim in this case was 7 years old. He was arrested in Mineola, July 25, and will remain in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.
    • A 45-year-old citizen of Trinidad and Tobago convicted of third degree rape of a victim incapable of consent and sentenced to 5 years of probation supervision. This Level 1 sex offender was arrested in East Hampton, July 29 and will remain in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.

    Criminal histories of those arrested during the operation are as follows: acting in a manner to injure a child, assault, third degree attempted rape, burglary, attempted sexual abuse, criminal sex act, endangering the welfare of a child, endangering the welfare of a physically disabled person, forcible touching, promoting a sexual performance by a child, public lewdness, first degree rape, second degree rape, third degree rape, reckless endangerment, first degree sexual abuse, second degree sexual abuse, sexual abuse:, forcible compulsion, sexual contact with an individual incapable of consent, and sexual misconduct.

    The arrestees include nationals from the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Mexico, Peru, and Trinidad and Tobago.

    ERO deportation officers made arrests throughout Long Island, specifically in Nassau County: East Meadow, Franklin Square, Garden City, Glen Cove, Mineola Port Washington, Roosevelt, Uniondale, Westbury; and in Suffolk County: Amityville, Bayshore, Brentwood, Central Islip, Copiague, Deer Park, East Hampton,
    Hampton Bays, Islip, Islip Terrace, Riverhead, Wyandanch, Yaphank.


    The foreign nationals arrested will be processed administratively for removal from the United States. The arrestees who have outstanding orders of deportation, or who returned to the United States illegally after being deported, are subject to immediate removal from the country. The remaining individuals are in ICE custody awaiting a hearing before an immigration judge, or pending travel arrangements for removal in the near future.


    ICE deportation officers carry out targeted enforcement operations every day in locations around the country as part of the agency’s ongoing efforts to protect the nation, uphold public safety, and protect the integrity of our immigration laws and border controls. These operations involve existing, established Fugitive Operations Teams.


    During such enforcement operations ICE officers frequently encounter additional suspects who may be in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. Those persons will be evaluated on a case by case basis and, when appropriate, arrested by ICE.
  2. The Cato Institute on the Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act

    This post is by David J. Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. Below is a statement he submitted to the House of Representatives about a new bill that is currently under consideration, the Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act. The bill would make it more difficult for certain aliens to seek asylum in the United States (though in a nod to Christian conservatives, the bill would also make it easier to gain asylum for people fleeing "home school persecution").

    David J. Bier

    The Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act (H.R. 391) would undermine the individual rights of people fleeing persecution and violence to seek asylum in the United States. The bill would obliterate the current asylum standards for people seeking asylum at the border, and now require such asylum seekers to prove their claims to an impossible degree immediately upon their arrival at the border—without access to the documents or witnesses that they would need to do so. The government would then promptly deport without a hearing before an immigration judge those who fail this unattainable requirement, possibly to endure violence or persecution.

    The authors claim that this radical change is necessary due to an unprecedented surge of asylum applicants. In the 1990s, however, a similar surge of asylum seekers arrived in the United States, and Congress adopted much less severe reforms than those proposed in this bill. Even assuming that the applicants are submitting asylum applications for the sole purpose of gaining entrance to the United States, the bill does nothing to address the underlying cause of the problem: the lack of a legal alternative to migrate. As long as legal immigration remains impossible for lesser-skilled workers and their family members, unauthorized immigration of various kinds will continue to present a challenge.

    Asylum rule change will result in denials of legitimate claims


    Current law requires that asylum seekers at the border assert a “credible fear” of persecution. Asylum officers determine credibility based on whether there is a “significant possibility” that, if they allow the person to apply, an immigration judge would find that the fear is “well-founded,” a higher standard of proof. The credible fear interview screens out only the claims that obviously have “no possibility, or only a minimal or mere possibility, of success,” as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) puts it. If the USCIS asylum officer rejects the claim as not credible, the applicant may ask an immigration judge to review the determination the next day but is not granted a full hearing. Customs and Border Protection removes those who fail to assert or fail to articulate a credible fear.

    H.R. 391 would impose a much higher standard simply to apply for asylum in the United States. In addition to demonstrating that they had significant possibility of successfully proving their claim to an immigration judge, it would require applicants to prove that it is “more probable than not” that their claims are true—a preponderance of the evidence standard. This standard eviscerates the lower bar that Congress established. The committee simply cannot expect that asylum seekers who may have had to sneak out of their country of origin in the dead of night or swim across rivers to escape persecution will have sufficient evidence the moment they arrive in the United States to meet this burden.

    In 2016, a group of Syrian Christians who traveled thousands of miles across multiple continents and then up through Mexico to get to the United States arrived at the border to apply for asylum. Thankfully, they met the credible fear standard and were not deported, which enabled them to hire an attorney to help them lay out their claim, but this new standard could endanger anyone who follows their path. An inability to provide sufficient evidence of their religion, nationality, residence, or fear would result in deportation immediately after presenting themselves at the border.

    The authors imply that requiring them to prove their statements are true is not the same as requiring them to prove their entire asylum case, but this is a distinction without a difference. Asylum applicants must state a “credible fear” of persecution. Those statements would then be subject to the much more stringent standard. Of course the government should demand the truth from all applicants, but this is a question of the standard by which asylum officers should use to weed truth from falsehood. It is virtually impossible that, by words alone, asylum seekers could prove that it is “more probable than not” that their statements are true.

    The committee should consider this fact: in 2016, immigration judges reversed nearly 30 percent of all denials of credible fear that came to them on appeal. This means that even under the current law, asylum officers make errors that would reject people with credible claims of persecution. If Congress requires an even greater burden, many more such errors will occur, but faced with the higher evidentiary requirement, immigration judges will have little choice but to ratify them.

    Here is another sign that the truth is not enough: asylum applicants with attorneys were half as likely to have their asylum denied by immigration judges in 2016 as those without attorneys. Indeed, 90 percent of all applicants without counsel lose their case, while a majority with counsel win theirs. This demonstrates that people need more than just honesty—they also need to understand what evidence is relevant to their case and need help to gather documents, witnesses, and other evidence to support their claim.

    For these reasons, Congress never intended the credible fear interview as a rigorous adversarial process because it wanted to give people who could credibly articulate a fear of persecution an opportunity to apply. It knew that while some people without legitimate claims would be able to apply, the lower standard of proof would protect vulnerable people from exclusion. As Senator Alan Simpson, the sponsor of the 1996 bill that created the credible fear process, said, “it is a significantly lesser fear standard than we use for any other provision.” Indeed, during the debate over the compromise version of the bill, proponents of the legislation touted that the fact that they had dropped “the more probable than not” language in the original version.

    Asylum surge is not unprecedented


    People can either apply for asylum “affirmatively” to USCIS on their own or they can apply “defensively” after they come into the custody of the U.S. government somehow, such as at the border or airport, to an immigration judge, which would include the credible fear process. If USCIS denies an “affirmative” applicant who is in the country illegally, the government places them in removal proceedings before an immigration judge where they can present their claim again.



    Reviewing the data on asylum claims, two facts become clear: total asylum claims peaked in the 1990s, and a substantial majority of claims are affirmative—that is, done voluntarily, not through the credible fear process or through removal proceedings. Although credible fear claims—a process that was first created in 1997—have increased dramatically, the overall number of asylum claims has still not reached the highs of the early 1990s. Unfortunately, the immigration courts have not published the number of cases that they received before 1996, but as Figure 1 shows, the United States has experienced similar surges of asylum seekers to 2016.

    It is noteworthy that in the midst of the surge in the 1990s, Congress did not adopt the draconian approach that this bill would require. Rather, it created the credible fear process that the bill would essentially eliminate. The authors of the legislation, however, argue that the Obama administration turned the credible fear process into a rubber stamp, allowing applicants to enter regardless of the credibility of their claims. But again a look at the numbers undermines this narrative. As Figure 2 highlights, the Obama administration denied an average of about 25 percent of all asylum seekers from 2009 to 2016.



    Despite fluctuations of up to 35 percentage points during this time, there is simply no relationship at all between the rate of approval and the number of claims being made. Factors other than the approval rate must be driving the number of applications. Some of these claims are undoubtedly invalid or even fraudulent, but given that a majority of claims by individuals with representation in immigration court win their asylum claims, it is obvious that the credible fear process has protected many people from deportation to persecution abroad.

    If fraudulent claims are a concern, Congress can best address it in the same way that it has successfully addressed other aspects of illegal immigration from Mexico: through an expansion of legal immigration. During the 1950s and again recently in the 2000s, Congress expanded the availability of low-skilled guest worker visas, which led to a great reduction in the rate of illegal immigration. Figure 3 presents the number of guest workers entering each year and the number of people each border agent apprehended each year—the best available measure of illegal immigration. It shows that the period of high illegal immigration occurred almost exclusively during the period of restrictive immigration.



    Most guest workers today are Mexicans. This is largely due to the fact that the current guest worker programs are limited to seasonal temporary jobs and Mexico is closer to the United States, which makes trips to and from the United States easier. By comparison, most asylum seekers are from Central America. Assuming that a significant portion of these asylum seekers are either reuniting with illegal residents already in the United States or are seeking illegal residence themselves, these seasonal programs are unavailable to them.

    Congress should create a temporary work visa program for low-skilled workers in year-round jobs, similar to the H-1B visa for high-skilled workers. This would cut down on asylum fraud and illegal immigration without the downsides that this bill presents.

    Originally posted on the Asylumist: www.Asylumist.com.
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: