Justice for Asylum Seekers

Under Trump, immigration courts have made a mockery of due process. From case quotas and tent courts to endless politicization, immigration courts have become the administration’s laboratory to assess the fastest way to deport, rather than deliver justice.

With a new proposed regulation, the Trump administration has launched another shameless attack on asylum seekers—and we need you to take action now and send a comment to voice your opposition.

From its inception, the Trump administration has tried to turn immigration courts into deportation mills. This new proposed rule would:

• Force asylum seekers to complete asylum applications within two weeks of their first hearing—even though many asylum seekers speak or understand English, are frequently detained and traumatized, have limited understanding of the complex asylum laws, and do not have access to counsel; people who cannot meet this deadline (even for reasons they cannot control, such as USPS delays), are not allowed to file for asylum.
• Reject asylum applications if asylum seekers forgot to answer a question, did not have access to certain supporting evidence, or cannot afford to pay a fee.
• Permit judges to submit their own evidence on the conditions asylum seekers would face if they were deported. This would allow judges who deny 90% of asylum claims to put their thumbs on the scales, denying asylum seekers their right to individualized determinations.
• Allow judges to minimize or even exclude asylum seekers’ evidence from non-governmental sources, even though the U.S. government typically underreports the severe harm asylum seekers—including women and children—face.  

Though the Trump administration has already weaponized immigration courts, this rule would strip due process rights from countless asylum seekers.

There is no justification for this proposed rule. Rushed and biased justice is no justice at all.

By law, the Trump administration is required to accept comments from the public about regulations before they go into effect. We only have until Friday, October 23^rd to express our outrage at these rules and send the Trump administration a resounding message that immigrants are welcome here.

It is clear that these proposed regulations are not a genuine attempt to make immigration courts ‘efficient’; with this rule, asylum seekers will be set up for deportation, rather than justice.

Take action now and submit your comment to stop the proposed rule and protect asylum seekers! Complete the form on this page with your info and reference the sample comment below to help you with your comment.

Below is a sample comment that you can modify with your own personal opinion and experiences. The government only reviews and counts unique comments, so DO NOT just copy and paste the sample comment. Modify the text and add your own voice to reflect your own professional expertise and personal experiences, or those of people you know, and explain why you believe the United States must offer protection to those fleeing persecution.

Sample comment:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rule [EOIR Docket No. 19–0010; A.G. Order No. 4843–2020] RIN 1125–AA93, which is designed to ensure the deportation of asylum seekers rather than the fair adjudication of their claims.

I believe that the United States should welcome asylum seekers because [choose one or more: the integrity and fairness of immigration courts is a matter of life or death for asylum seekers / you or your family sought asylum / other reasons unique to you]. Asylum seekers are entitled to due process and fair hearings. Erecting more barriers to ensure their deportation is not just callous, it is incompatible with our legal obligations to protect those fleeing persecution.

[Explain why you believe it is imperative that the United States provide a safe haven for asylum seekers fleeing harm, including your own experiences with asylum seekers or asylees who have personally impacted your life.]

This rule would roll back due process rights and cause undue harm to individuals who need protection. Specifically, this rule would require asylum seekers to file their asylum applications within two weeks of their first hearing—or else they lose their lawful right to seek asylum protection.

[Explain why it is fundamentally unfair to expect asylum seekers, who are often recovering from trauma and do not have the right to counsel, to articulate their greatest fears within 2 weeks OR how asylum seekers, who often do not speak or read English and do not have access to interpreters, cannot complete complicated asylum applications within 2 weeks OR how asylum seekers, who are often detained, have limited access to the evidence they need to file their applications under such a rushed timeline OR why asylum seekers, who are fleeing for their lives, should be afforded a reasonable time to articulate their claims.] I urge the government to immediately withdraw its current proposal and instead focus on implementing procedures that ensure asylum seekers have the support and time they need to present their full claims for protection.

Providing a reasonable opportunity to present asylum claims is key to due process and our obligations under U.S. and international law. Not only would this rule rush asylum seekers, but it would also require rejection of their applications if they forgot to answer a question, don’t have ready access to evidence they have to submit, or if they can’t pay a fee.

[If you have experience with immigration forms, such as the asylum application I-589, discuss how questions are often confusing for English speakers, let alone asylum seekers who may not understand the linguistic and legal nuances behind each question. OR Discuss how asylum seekers frequently leave their countries of origin without the evidence they need, because they are seeking safety. They should not be penalized for this, as many rely on relatives and friends to send them the evidence they need to present their claims. OR Discuss how the U.S. is only one of four countries in the world to charge asylum seekers a fee to seek protection, and that there should never be a wealth tax on the right to asylum.]

Finally, this rule proposes to allow immigration judges to submit evidence of the conditions asylum seekers face in their home country. This proposed change would allow judges to shape the record against large categories of asylum seekers, rather than decide each case on its individual merits. Judges would also be able to minimize or even exclude asylum seekers’ evidence if it comes from non-governmental sources, even though the U.S. government underreports the severe harm asylum seekers—including women and children—face.

[If you have experience in any court proceeding, including traffic, criminal, civil, or immigration court, discuss how this rule makes a mockery of the impartial decision-making due process demands. What would your court experience have been like if the judge was able to file their own evidence against one party? Why is it important to allow asylum seekers, who may experience harm such as gender-based violence or violence due to their LGBTQ status, present all relevant evidence to make their case? How does this empower judges who may be biased against certain asylum seekers on the basis of their race, gender, religion, or national origin?]  

The Department of Justice should immediately withdraw their current proposal, and instead, dedicate their efforts to ensuring that individuals fleeing violence are granted full and fair access to asylum protections in the United States.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Proposed Rules.

Sincerely,

Name

Organization Name
Org Address Line 1
Org City, Org State Org Zip

immigrantjustice.org