This practice advisory addresses common questions that arise for practitioners representing TPS-eligible individuals who are in removal proceedings or facing potential removal proceedings, hold dual nationality, or wish to seek asylum.

This FAQ provides an overview of the new rule, including how the rule interacts with the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule.

This manual is designed to provides practical information on how to navigate the application process from completing the form I-730, to compiling evidence, to troubleshooting with government agencies.

This resource will explain the types of questions that an applicant can expect related to the one-year filing deadline.

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has issued a precedential decision addressing the circumstances under which asylum applicants can show that the government is “unable or unwilling” to protect them from harm by private actors. The BIA emphasized that this determination is a fact-specific inquiry based on consideration of all evidence. Importantly, the BIA also found that failure to report harm is not fatal to a claim of persecution if reporting private abuse would have been futile or dangerous. 

This practice advisory is intended to orient practitioners navigating common obstacles in the representation of Afghan asylum seekers in the United States.

The Fourth Circuit has adopted an expansive reading of asylum claims based on religious persecution. The Fourth Circuit found that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had erred in finding that there was no nexus between a death threat received by the asylum applicant and the protected ground of her religion. Instead, the Fourth Circuit adopted a broad interpretation of the nexus requirement, finding that that the applicant’s Christian Pentecostal religion was “one central reason” for the death threat that she endured by gang members in El Salvador, even though the threat was not motivated by a desire to hinder or impede her religious practice.

This resource guide provides a basic overview of the documentation that Afghans arriving along the U.S.-Mexico border may present and how both resettlement agencies and legal services providers can assist them.

CLINIC has published a new brief on the Biden administration’s asylum ban, outlining basic information about the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule, exceptions to the rule, and ways to rebut the presumption of asylum ineligibility. The brief also includes an infographic with a hypothetical scenario.

Title 42 is scheduled to end May 11, 2023. This is a page of resources for legal practitioners, advocates, and others helping immigrant clients navigate the immigration system post-Title 42. If you would like to suggest a new resource be added to this page, please contact Tania Guerrero at tguerrero@cliniclegal.org.

This one-page resource provides basic information on the CBP One app, which is now used to schedule appointments prior to crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. It explains the app’s origins, some common failures of the app, and how it is currently used.

The Central American Minors, or CAM, program was set up to reunify minors in Central American with their parents or legal guardians in the United States. On April 11, 2023, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration published a new rule in the Federal Register announcing new enhancements to the CAM program.

CLINIC submitted a public comment on March 24, 2023, concerning the new proposed rule on asylum.

Join us – Submit a public comment to the Biden administration to speak out against the proposed asylum ban!

A template to help immigration services organizations draft a public comment in response to the administration’s proposed Asylum Rule that would eliminate asylum for the vast majority of asylum seekers at the U.S. southern border

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court held that the Biden administration’s termination of the Trump-era “Migrant Protection Protocols,” or MPP, did not violate the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA. The Court further held that the Oct. 29, 2021, memorandum issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security terminating MPP was “final agency action.”

“It is not enough to just say ‘thank you,’” said John. “[The] work that you and your team did for us is beyond simple gratitude. Your help made my family happier, made us sure that tomorrow we will be safe and everything will be all right.” John and his wife fled Russia after he refused to serve in the Russian military and government officials threatened him. Eventually, they made it to the U.S.-Mexico border and sought asylum.

These FAQs address the legal requirements for an applicant to be eligible for adjustment of status in both the immediate relative and preference categories. The FAQs also address how an applicant may file an application for adjustment of status even if the initial intent was to consular process.

The Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice jointly issued an interim final rule to revise the processing of certain applications for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The rule makes numerous changes to the way asylum applications are processed for those in expedited removal proceedings who express a fear of return and pass a credible fear interview.

EOIR published the Immigration Court Practice Manual, or ICPM, — a comprehensive guide that sets forth uniform procedures, recommendations, and requirements for practice before the Immigration Courts — in February 2008. Since then, the ICPM has seen many updates, but no update was as comprehensive as the update produced on Nov. 20, 2020, and released on Dec. 31, 2020. This resource briefly summarizes some of the key changes via a chart comparing the current version with the prior version of the ICPM.

Asylum seekers who entered the United States at the southern border and who were not apprised of the one year filing deadline for asylum may be class members in the litigation Mendez Rojas v. Wolf. The deadline to claim class membership and benefit from the settlement in the case is April 22, 2022. Advocates should be aware of this deadline and ensuring that any clients or prospective clients comply with the settlement requirements.

The USCIS Asylum Office’s Credible Fear Lesson Plan is designed to train asylum officers and set forth standards to be followed when conducting credible fear interviews. CLINIC analyzed changes to the 2019 USCIS Asylum Office’s Credible Fear Lesson Plan and added them to a comparison chart AILA had previously created outlining changes among the 2006, 2014 and 2017 Lesson Plans. The comparison chart includes analysis from all three lesson plans with a summary of the 2019 changes.

CLINIC is counsel in the case of Matter of L-E-A-. On June 16, 2021, the Attorney General issued a decision, Matter of L-E-A- III, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (AG 2021), vacating Matter of L-E-A-II, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019. L-E-A- II had held that the family is not inherently socially distinct and overruled the finding in L-E-A- I, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017) that Mr. L-E-A-’s father’s immediate family could be a particular social group. We continue to represent Mr. L-E-A- on his case and to advocate for asylum seekers to have the right to seek asylum based on harm they fear on account of their family group membership.

On July 29, 2019, the attorney general issued a decision, Matter of L-E-A-II, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019), which held that the family is not inherently socially distinct and overruled the finding in L-E-A- I, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017) that Mr. L-E-A-’s father’s immediate family could be a particular social group. CLINIC issued this Practice Pointer shortly after Matter of L-E-A-II, providing suggestions for practitioners on how to frame asylum claims involving family-based particular social groups in light of the attorney general’s decision. On June 16, 2021, Attorney General Garland issued a decision, Matter of L-E-A- III, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (AG 2021), vacating Matter of L-E-A-II. CLINIC is leaving this Practice Pointer on our website because it provides a good overview of federal court precedent involving family-based claims, but practitioners should be aware that Matter of L-E-A-II is no longer in effect and the Practice Pointer has not been updated to reflect Matter of L-E-A-III.

On Oct. 18, 2021, CLINIC submitted comments largely opposing a proposed rule that would authorize asylum officers to hear cases of asylum seekers who pass credible fear interviews, rather than having their cases referred directly to an immigration judge. While CLINIC does not object to asylum officers hearing these cases, under the proposed rule, immigration judges would merely review a transcript of that interview in most cases where the asylum officer does not grant asylum, rather than conducting a full hearing. CLINIC strongly objects to any changes in asylum procedures that would allow asylum seekers to be removed without having the due process protections of a full immigration court hearing first.

CLINIC filed suit on Nov. 22, 2019, to enjoin the implementation of Matter of L-E-A-II, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019) in credible fear interviews. This suit was filed on behalf of thirteen plaintiffs whose credible fear interviews were denied despite having testified to fear of harm in their home country on the basis of a family connection. Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order enjoining the application of guidance based on L-E-A- II to credible and reasonable fear interviews.

CLINIC has played a key role in fighting against constraints placed on asylum seekers. After the attorney general issued Matter of L-E-A-II, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (AG 2019), which has subsequently been vacated by Matter of L-E-A- III, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (AG 2021), it became more difficult to prove that a family group membership could qualify as a particular social group. To assist with this evidentiary burden, CLINIC has translated Title II of the Salvadoran Civil Code entitled “Rules Relative to Intestate Succession,” which may help practitioners establish a cognizable family-based particular social group on behalf of Salvadoran clients. Likewise, CLINIC has translated sections of the Guatemalan Civil Code pertaining to family law. While Matter of L-E-A-II is no longer in effect, understanding the law that governs family relationships can still help prove social distinction for particular social group asylum claims and may be of value for family-based immigration petitions.

This document guide provides information and samples of the type of documents that Afghan parolees may be issued by DHS. It explains what resettlement agencies should look for when determining an Afghan parolee’s eligibility for resettlement benefits as well what immigration practitioner should look for when determining an Afghan parolee’s eligibility for asylum or permanent residence in the United States.

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., or CLINIC, and the Duke Law School Immigrant Rights Clinic filed a petition for review in March 2020 challenging a Board of Immigration Appeals precedent denying asylum protections for immigrants fleeing gangs and drug traffickers.

In 2019, the Trump administration implemented the so-called Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP, forcing many asylum seekers to remain in Mexico for months or even years awaiting a court date before a U.S. immigration judge. In the spring of 2021, the Biden administration began to wind-down MPP, allowing many asylum seekers who had been forcibly stranded in Mexico into the United States to pursue their claims for asylum. This updated practice advisory discusses the firm resettlement bar under U.S.

The Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA, issued a published decision establishing that the “exceptional circumstances” in absentia reopening provision may encompass situations that led to a respondent’s late arrival to court and, therefore, absence at a removal hearing. This decision provides a non-exhaustive list of factors and corroborative evidence for immigration judges to consider when adjudicating late arrival in absentia motions to reopen on a case-by-case basis.

Concerned about the Trump administration’s remarks targeting asylum seekers and a potential increase in asylum terminations, on Oct. 3, 2019, CLINIC submitted a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request to USCIS seeking information about the numbers of Notices of Intent to Terminate asylum status issued by each asylum office, how many asylum grants were terminated and how many left in place, and the grounds for the asylum offices issuing the Notices.

In Garland v. Dai, the Supreme Court addressed the standard under which federal courts of appeals review credibility findings in asylum cases. The Court rejected the generous approach taken by the Ninth Circuit, which had employed a rule requiring a finding that the asylum-seeker is credible unless the Board of Immigration Appeals explicitly made an adverse credibility finding.

On April 8, 2021, CLINIC and the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, or CGRS, filed an amicus brief with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, on behalf of an asylum seeker and her son. The family fled El Salvador following the murder of one family member, and death threats against the petitioner in this case. Nonetheless, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA, rejected the case, finding that the family was not a cognizable particular social group and that there was no nexus between the harm and a protected characteristic. CLINIC and CGRS laid out the long history of family being a protected ground as well as other flaws in the BIA's reasoning.

CLINIC, the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, and Pangea Legal Services, have sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, calling on him to vacate three precedential decisions — Matter of A-B-, Matter of A-C-A-A-, and Matter of L-E-A- — that severely limit access to asylum for those fleeing domestic violence, gang violence and violence based on family membership. As counsel for the asylum seekers in these three cases, we ask that the decisions be set aside as the agencies work on issuing regulations that will address these issues, pursuant to President Biden's Feb. 2, 2021 executive order on asylum.

CLINIC released three new resources comparing Department of State, or DOS, Human Rights Reports for the three Northern Triangle countries of Central America — Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador — under the last year of the Obama administration and the last year of the Trump administration, highlighting substantial changes. Each year, DOS issues a Human Rights Report on every country that is a United Nations member state or receives assistance.

Each year the U.S. Department of State issues a Human Rights Report on every country in the world. These reports play an important role in adjudicating asylum and other humanitarian applications for relief, as immigration judges often rely heavily on their conclusions. Pending proposed regulations would give these reports even greater weight in immigration court. CLINIC has evaluated the Department of State reports for 2016 — the last year that the Obama administration produced the reports — and 2019 — the last year the Trump administration produced the reports — and found significant differences in length, subject matter and tone.

The Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA, recently issued a decision where it concluded that individuals who cooperate with law enforcement may constitute a valid particular social group, or PSG, but only if their cooperation is public in nature and the society in question recognizes and provides protection for such cooperation. Matter of H-L-S-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 228 (BIA 2021). Its holding risks eliminating asylum eligibility for many applicants who have genuine fears of return based on having taken public actions against their potential persecutors.

On Nov. 12, 2020, CLINIC joined the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, and Public Counsel in appearing as amici curiae in Pham v. Guzman Chavez. In this case, the Supreme Court will consider whether people in proceedings to determine their eligibility for withholding of removal may be released from immigration detention on bond. CLINIC is represented by WilmerHale.

CLINIC, together with several other nonprofit organizations and law school clinics, appeared as amici curiae asking the Ninth Circuit to block a rule preventing people who transited through a third country from obtaining asylum.

On Nov. 3, 2020 CLINIC and the University of Minnesota Law School’s Immigration and Human Rights Clinic filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the immigration judge's reliance on a Department of State Human Rights Report in denying the applicant's asylum claim from Honduras.

On Oct. 16, 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a precedent decision holding that an immigration judge (IJ) has initial jurisdiction over an asylum application filed by a respondent previously determined to be an “unaccompanied alien child” who turns 18 before filing the asylum application, in Matter of M-A-C-O-, 27 I&N Dec. 477 (BIA 2018).

On July 9, 2020, the administration issued a proposed regulation entitled, “Security Bars and Processing.” The proposed rule seeks to bar entry of asylum applicants who have tested positive for COVID-19, come from a country where COVID-19 is prevalent, and/or exhibit COVID-19 symptoms. The administration is using the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as a basis to apply a mandatory bar to asylum and withholding of removal.

On July 31, 2019, CLINIC joined eight other organizations that serve survivors of gender-based violence to submit an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.

On July 15, 2020, CLINIC submitted comments on sweeping proposed regulations that would render most people fleeing harm ineligible for asylum protection. CLINIC strongly opposed both the limited time frame for submitting comments to such a radical rule change and to the substance of the rule.

FAQs on the administration's issued two new rules: Removal of 30-Day Processing Provision for Asylum Applicant-Related Form I-765 Employment Authorization Applications and Asylum Application, Interview, and Employment Authorization for Applicants.

On June 15, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Office for Immigration Review issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NPRM, attempting to eliminate asylum for the most vulnerable of asylum seekers. This massive rule would essentially abolish the asylum system in violation of international and domestic law.

The Supreme Court decision on June 18, 2020, in Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California has given DACA recipients a reprieve from the Trump Administration’s efforts to end the program. Nonetheless, until Congress acts to provide permanent status for those with DACA, it is important for practitioners representing DACA recipients to consider permanent relief options in each DACA client’s case.

The Supreme Court decision on June 18, 2020, in Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California has given DACA recipients a reprieve from the Trump Administration’s efforts to end the program. Nonetheless, until Congress acts to provide permanent status for those with DACA, it is important for practitioners representing DACA recipients to consider permanent relief options in each DACA client’s case.

Attached is a template to help immigration services organizations draft a public comment in response to the administration’s proposed Asylum Rule that would eliminate asylum for the vast majority of asylum seekers.

CLINIC submitted comments on April 23, 2020, opposing the Department of Health and Human Services' Interim Final Rule, or IFR, outlining the procedure by which the Centers of Disease Control, or CDC, may "suspend the introduction of persons from designated countries or places, if required, in the interest of public health." CLINIC's comment calls upon the U.S. government to rescind this IFR and proclamation and end this unprecedented restriction on seeking asylum at the border.

The Board of Immigration Appeals issued a decision where it concluded that an asylum seeker’s willingness or reluctance to accept an offer for permanent residence does not negate a firm resettlement finding.

An immigration judge may issue an in absentia removal order if the Department of Homeland Security establishes by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence that the respondent had written notice of the hearing and is removable as charged on the Notice to Appear. There are many reasons why a respondent may fail to appear at a removal hearing, including lack of notice of the hearing, sickness, a breakdown in transportation, limited or no English knowledge, or because the respondent is a child without the help of a responsible adult who can assist them in getting to the hearing.

The Mercer Law School Immigration Appeals Clinic filed an amicus brief on CLINIC’s behalf on March 11, 2020. The amicus brief lays out how the particular social group of “Honduran transgender women” meets the three-prong test laid out in Matter of M-E-V-G-.

Update: After submission of this, and other amicus briefs, the Department of Homeland Security stipulated to remand the case to the immigration judge.

CLINIC joined with 17 other organizations that serve asylum seekers to urge the Ninth Circuit to uphold a preliminary injunction in favor of asylum seekers affected by Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) so-called “metering” policy.

CLINIC submitted comments on January 13, 2020 strongly opposing proposed regulations which will impose new limitations on asylum seekers’ ability to obtain an employment authorization document (EAD) while their asylum applications are pending.

On Jan. 21, 2020, CLINIC submitted a public comment opposing the proposed rule to create additional criminal bars to asylum. CLINIC opposes this rule because it expands the categorical bars to asylum to include minor offenses and alleged criminal conduct, without consideration of proportionality. In our comment, CLINIC describes how the proposed rule is contrary to our obligations under the United Nations Refugee Convention, and how its implementation will result in the separation of families and the wrongful return of asylum seekers to harm.

CLINIC submitted comments on an Interim Final Regulation issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) that allows the United States to send asylum seekers at the southern border to countries with which the United States has entered into “asylum cooperative agreements.” These countries—Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador—are among the most dangerous countries in the Western Hemisphere and do not have government infrastructure to handle thousands of additional asylum claims.

CLINIC submitted comments in response to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) proposed regulation entitled “Removal of 30-Day Processing Provision for Asylum Seekers’ Initial  Employment Authorization Document Applications,” DHS Docket No. USCIS-2018-0001, RIN 1615-AC19. In this proposed regulation, which was posted on Sept. 9, 2019, DHS seeks to eliminate the rule, which requires it to process initial employment authorization documents (EADs) for asylum applicants within 30 days.

President Trump issued an Executive Order13888 on Enhancing State and Local Involvement in Refugee Resettlement, or the “Executive Order”, on Sept. 26 that will allow states and localities to restrict the resettlement of refugee in their areas.

In a continued assault on U.S. asylum protections, the Trump administration has recently issued a number of new regulations and policies aimed at barring or restricting asylum eligibility for most asylum seekers. This article summarizes and provides updates on eight such efforts from the Trump administration: (1) the July 2019 third country transit bar; (2) the November 2018 asylum ban; (3) the attorney general’s July 2019 decision purporting to restrict asylum claims based on family membership; (4) the U.S.

On Aug. 15, 260 faith organizations and leaders from across traditions submitted a joint public comment opposing an interim final rule that denies access to asylum to people who have passed through any other country before arriving at the southern border, requiring them to have applied for asylum in at least one country they passed through in order to ask for safety in the United States.

Check out CLINIC's answers to frequently asked questions on third country transit regulations.

This guide provides attorneys and fully accredited representatives with strategies and best practices for representing asylum seekers with in absentia removal orders.

CLINIC joined 30 human rights organizations in calling on Attorney General Barr and Acting Homeland Security Secretary McAleenan to refrain from adopting proposed regulations set forth in an April 2019 White House Memorandum.

Refugee and asylum law is largely a matter that impacts and is impacted by the international community, given the delicate nature of accepting aliens from other countries who are at risk of being persecuted. The obligations of the U.S. in this realm are defined by The 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which have been incorporated into domestic law.

The U.S. government has issued in absentia removal orders to a large number of families primarily from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. These families fled persecution and sought safety in the United States often proving they had a credible fear of returning to their home country.

On March 12, 2019 CLINIC, joined by other faith-based organizations, submitted an amicus brief to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in the case O.L.B.D. v. Barr. In this case, Ms. O.L.B.D., a survivor of severe physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by her ex-husband, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of her asylum claim. The case presents a direct challenge to Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), the decision Jeff Sessions issued last summer which sought to greatly limit asylum eligibility for survivors of domestic violence and gang violence.

As co-counsel to Mr. L-E-A-, CLINIC attorneys filed this brief with the Justice Department on Feb. 19, 2019. The client’s name and other identifying information has been redacted.

The Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, released its new Migrant Protection Protocols, or Remain in Mexico Policy, on Jan. 24. The new policy sets out procedures to return asylum-seekers to Mexico to wait while their asylum case is pending in the U.S. immigration court system. There are still many unanswered questions about this effort to thwart asylum seekers, but this is what we know so far.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shut its doors at the San Ysidro port of entry in mid-Novemeber of 2018, claiming that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) lacked the capacity to process fear claims in light of the arrival of the Central American migrant caravan. The “Exodus” members – more than 5,000 Hondurans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans — were greeted with hostility and ad hoc restrictions that prevented their ability to seek asylum. This has created a two-month long bottleneck at the U.S.-Mexico border, a humanitarian crisis and a watershed moment in U.S.

The government recently issued two parallel guidance memos following a decision by District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan in Grace v. Whitaker.

On Jan. 8, 2019, CLINIC joined 150 nonprofit organizations to submit a joint public comment opposing the interim final rule restricting asylum for some migrants at the border. This rule has the objective of restricting asylum protections for individuals seeking entry to the United States at places other than official ports of entry. The comment calls on the agency to withdraw the rule due to it being a violation of U.S. and international law as well as going against our moral values.

On Dec. 17, 2018, the district court for the District of Columbia, in Grace v. Whitaker, struck down the administration’s new credible fear policies. On June 11, 2018, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a decision in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 227 (A.G. 2018), where he attempted to fundamentally change the legal requirements for asylum eligibility.

The ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a request for an injunction in the Northern California District Court in the case of East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump.  The district court granted a temporary restraining order on November 20, 2018.  This ruling temporarily enjoins (or stops) the government from enforcing the Asylum Ban, temporarily, until December 19, 2018 when the court will decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction. The questions and answers below discuss what the Asylum Ban will do if the judge does not extend the injunction or if the government appeals the injunction and the district court order is lifted.

This section of the toolkit includes resources to help you represent asylum applicant clients.

The notes below were issued by the Asylum Division and are available online.

Introduction

CLINIC Senior Attorney Victoria Neilson and Central American Legal Assistance (CALA) Senior Staff Attorney Heather Axford drafted this sample brief that practitioners can use to respond to immigration judges who demand that the asylum seeker state the particular social group(s) at a master calendar hearing as a prerequisite to scheduling the individual hearing.

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., filed an amicus brief April 27 challenging Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ effort to insert himself into a settled immigration case, the Matter of A-B. The attorney general’s unusual move could result in changes to long-settled immigration policy, making it harder for many asylum seekers -- notably those fleeing religion-based persecution – to obtain protection in the United States.

People seeking asylum and/or withholding of removal in the United States, who are either in expedited removal or reinstatement of removal proceedings, must go through a screening process with a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum officer. After the screening process is complete, with a positive outcome, an asylum applicant can make a formal request for asylum and/or withholding of removal with an immigration judge. Asylum officers are trained to do protection screening interviews from lesson plans that set forth standards to be followed when conducting these interviews.

A document outlining frequently asked questions about the Jan. 27 executive order that affects refugees and foreign travel.

This material was written before the temporary restraining order was issued on Feb. 3. It will be updated as warranted.

Beneficiaries of approved I-130 petitions who are from Iraq or Syria are now able to qualify to apply for refugee resettlement. The new program is called Priority-2 (P-2) Direct Access Program for Iraqi and Syrian beneficiaries of an approved Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative. The benefit is that these family members would gain access to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, but the applicant would still need to meet the definition of a “refugee” and be interviewed and screened.

Expedited removal is a process that allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, to order a non-citizen removed without providing an opportunity for a hearing before an immigration judge, or IJ. CBP has the power to issue an expedited removal order if the non-citizen arrives at a port of entry without proper documents, or is apprehended within 100 miles of the border within 14 days of entry and lacks proper documents.

In an effort discourage asylum claims from DACA and TPS holders, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced on Jan. 31, 2018, that it was changing the way the agency schedules asylum interviews. Instead of adjudicating them on a “first-in, first-out” basis, it would revert to a prior “last-in, first-out” basis, which is the way they scheduled cases from 1995 to 2014.

Background

This guide is designed to give service providers the tools and information needed to address the barriers to resettlement and integration faced by asylees and to better assist their clients.

The Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA, recently issued a decision, Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B, 27 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2018), that requires asylum applicants in removal proceedings to clearly delineate on the record before the immigration judge, or IJ, the “particular social group” in which they claim membership. The BIA further held that it would not consider newly proposed particular social groups on appeal that were not presented before the immigration judge. 

Background