Don’t Railroad Asylum : Refugees: An 11th-hour rescue is possible to repeal a cruel, unfair new law.
The young woman who came to our office seeking asylum had never before told anyone about the torture and sexual abuse that she suffered at the hands of military officials in Africa. She became so distraught when she tried to recount her past that she crouched down in a corner and wept, unable to continue the interview. The political activist from Eastern Europe was unable to speak about his incarceration and torture during his first interview. Fortunately, he was granted another, in which he painfully revealed his history of government-inflicted abuse.
As a former asylum officer with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, I am aware of many cases in which victims of torture and abuse had great difficulty relating their stories of violence, even under the most conducive circumstances,
Soon it will be even more difficult for such people to obtain protection in the United States, thanks to harsh immigration provisions in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, set to take effect on Nov. 1. These provisions, which have nothing to do with terrorism, require all asylum seekers who enter the country with false or no documents to immediately make their case that they have a “credible fear” of persecution if returned to the land where the abuse took place. They will have to relate the details of the often traumatic and highly personal experiences of abuse and torture to a stranger, a U.S. government official charged with deciding whether they merit an asylum interview. The threshold is twofold: whether it is “more probable than not” that the individual is telling the truth, and if so, whether there is a “significant possibility” that a claim of persecution can be established.
Applicants will not have the right to seek counsel or to consult with others if it would delay the expedited process. If the asylum officer determines that the claim is not credible or legally sound, there will be no asylum interview and no appeal.
Asylum adjudication is complex and difficult work, and many factors can inhibit communication between the officer and the applicant. Asylum seekers arrive in the United States from a multitude of countries, cultures and backgrounds, heightening the possibility of misunderstanding. Body language, for instance, varies across cultures. The failure to make eye contact with an interviewer might be interpreted in this culture as a sign of dishonesty. In other cultures it is a sign of respect for authority. Conceptions of time and the importance of dates also vary across cultures. An inability to identify dates or relate events in a chronological fashion may indicate only that the society has little use for these notions.
Attorneys working on asylum cases have--or used to have--many weeks to establish trust and piece together their clients’ life stories. Asylum officers have one hour to build rapport, confirm relevant biographical information and elicit the details of the asylum claim. Under the new law, the initial interviews will take place on the spot, possibly lasting no more than several minutes.
I felt confident about the majority of my decisions, but there were times when I knew I was not hearing the full story. In those instances, it was a great relief to know that the asylum applicant would have another opportunity to present his or her claim in a hearing before an immigration judge, to obtain counsel and to have all of the procedural protections afforded in an adversarial proceeding. The anti-terrorism law has eliminated this system of checks and balances; there will be no hearing, no right to representation, no possibility of appeal.
When I became an asylum officer, I was told that I would be charged with identifying and protecting refugees, to ensure that no one would be returned to a country where he or she might face persecution. It is clear to me that expedited processing will increase the potential for error, while at the same time eliminating crucial safeguards.
Will the personnel who are empowered to reject asylum seekers be given sufficient training? Will they be given time to conduct thorough interviews, research country conditions and prepare reasoned decisions? Given the varying capabilities and sympathies of individual asylum officers, how will consistency be enforced nationally? How can we be assured that victims of severe trauma will be given a meaningful opportunity to relate the horror they experienced in their homelands?
This irrational law is contrary to our obligation to provide protection to victims of persecution, and it virtually ensures that genuine refugees will be expelled without a fair opportunity to present their claims. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) voted for the amendment to the Senate immigration bill that would repeal expedited exclusion. The Senate bill, however, must be reconciled with a House version that would uphold summary exclusion. The conference committee, of which Feinstein is a member, is about to begin this process. She and the other committee members should not abandon the principles of refugee protection.
