Add Your Comment: Don't Make the Asylum Process More Complicated
The Biden administration is inviting comments from the public about some proposed changes to the asylum process. We think these changes are harmful—if you agree, please use our form to send them your comment.
Please note: We’ve created a draft comment in our form to get you started, but the government only counts and responds to comments that are unique, so please try to customize it with your own thoughts.
What are the changes they're proposing?
THE SHORT VERSION
Essentially, they want to reject some asylum seekers earlier on in the process, by allowing asylum officers to consider factors that are currently only reviewed in a full hearing by an immigration judge. And they’re making these changes optional—so the asylum officer can decide whether or not to do it. This will make the asylum process even more arbitrary and complicated than it already is.
LEARN MORE
The initial screening interview, called a “credible fear interview,” is where an asylum officer decides how likely it is that an asylum seeker would be found eligible for protection by an immigration judge. The asylum officer bases the decision on information about the persecution or torture the person suffered or would suffer in their home country. If a person passes this interview, they are able to present their case for asylum to an immigration judge who has the power to grant their request.
At that stage, the judge also considers whether there are any “bars” that automatically disqualify the person from being granted asylum. These are things like having committed a crime, having supported a terrorist organization, or posing “a danger to the security of the United States.”
Whether or not someone meets one of these bars can be one of the most complex questions in immigration law. That’s one reason why they are currently put to the judge, rather than the asylum officer (who may not even be an attorney). Moving these considerations to the screening interview opens up the possibility of deserving applications being wrongly denied—especially because there is almost never the opportunity for the asylum seeker to have a lawyer or even to present evidence at that stage.
Additionally, the new changes would allow officers to consider these bars at their discretion. That means that the amount of consideration given to the asylum bars in a person’s screening interview could depend on which officer is assigned to their case, how busy that person is, or any other factors that might influence whether discretion is used. Because of the lack of transparency around the interview process, there would be no way for the public to see patterns around factors like race, nationality, or other characteristics that should not impact an asylum application.
The administration is presenting this change as a relatively small thing that won’t impact very many interviews and will give them flexibility to speed up processing. But a consistent, efficient, and fair asylum system requires that everyone goes through the same process, and that two people with identical claims will not get different outcomes. The administration is asking for your opinion on the matter, so please use our form to add your comment.