Credible fear

Last updated

Credible fear is a concept in United States asylum law whereby a person who demonstrates a credible fear of returning to their home country cannot be subject to deportation from the United States until the person's asylum case is processed.

Contents

Historical context

Historically, the deportation of a person not lawfully present in the United States required the approval of an Immigration Judge, unless it was based on an apprehension at the border itself. In November 2002, in order to speed up the process of deportation, the United States Department of Homeland Security expanded the scope of expedited removal to include those apprehended within 100 miles of the United States border and within 14 days of entry.

To address concerns that this might result in the deportation of people who might be eligible for asylum, the credible fear screening was introduced. [1] According to the Congressional Research Service, "Consistent time series data on 'credible fear' claims" was only collected beginning in fiscal year 2005. [2]

Summary

The legal framework governing credible fear is described in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality), 208.30 (8 CFR 208.30). [3] According to the summary on the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website: "An individual will be found to have a credible fear of persecution if he or she establishes that there is a "significant possibility" that he or she could establish in a full hearing before an Immigration Judge that he or she has been persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution or harm on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion if returned to his or her country." [4]

Types of credible fear

There are two kinds of credible fear recognized in United States law: [3] [4]

Process

Initial contact

When a person enters the United States without authorization, United States Customs and Border Protection are, at initial contact, supposed to ask the person whether a credible fear of returning to their home country exists. If the person responds affirmatively, then the person cannot be immediately deported, but instead the person is referred to an asylum officer for a credible fear interview and issued a Form M-444 Information About Credible Fear Interview . [4] [5] If the person responds negatively, the person may be subject to expedited removal. [5]

A person who has not yet come into contact with immigration enforcement (either because they are already present in the United States in lawful status, or because immigration enforcement hasn't yet found the person) may also apply for asylum of his or her own accord (this is sometimes called applying for asylum affirmatively). Such a person does not need to go through a credible fear interview. The credible fear interview is intended only for individuals who have been identified as candidates for deportation. [1]

Credible fear interview

After initial contact, the person claiming credible fear needs to be given at least 48 hours before a credible fear interview with an asylum officer, unless they voluntarily waives the 48-hour waiting period requirement. In practice, due to a huge backlog of cases, the person may need to wait several days before getting an interview. [4]

The credible fear interview is conducted by an asylum officer from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Asylum Division. The goal of a credible fear interview is not to make a final determination regarding whether the applicant should be granted asylum, but rather, to determine whether the applicant has a reasonable prima facie case that makes it plausible that the applicant could be granted asylum. According to the USCIS website: "An individual will be found to have a credible fear of persecution if he or she establishes that there is a "significant possibility" that he or she could establish in a full hearing before an Immigration Judge that he or she has been persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution or harm on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion if returned to his or her country." [4]

The interview includes questions in the following domains:

In the credible fear interview, the burden of proof to demonstrate credible fear is on the applicant. [6] There is no presumption in favor of credible fear. [7]

The transcript of the credible fear interview is part of the applicant's asylum file and may be used by an Immigration Judge later when deciding whether to grant the applicant asylum. [1]

Due to manpower and resource constraints faced by USCIS, over 60% of credible fear interviews are conducted telephonically. [1]

Procedure after the credible fear interview

If the officer issues an unfavorable determination of credible fear to the applicant, the applicant may continue to be detained and may be deported for violation of immigration law.

If the officer issues a favorable determination of credible fear, then the applicant goes through regular removal proceedings. Specifically, the officer issues a Notice To Appear (NTA) to the applicant, directing the applicant to appear for his or her removal case in an immigration court, during which the applicant needs to make the case for asylum in full detail to the immigration judge. The applicant is now handled by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). After ICE files the NTA with the court, a removal hearing is held before an immigration judge. [5] The applicant may have to wait for several months for a hearing due to the huge backlog of cases.

Applicants may wait for their hearing while detained or on parole. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has the following guidelines regarding parole for people with a favorable determination of credible fear, who are waiting for asylum hearings:

Critical response

Criticism of CBP for not following procedure asking people if they have a credible fear

CBP has come under criticism for not asking people if they have a credible fear, and not referring people for a credible fear interview even when they had a good prima facie chance of passing one. [10] A report by the Immigration Policy Center cited a number of attorneys as saying their clients were given misinformation by CBP about the credible fear process, with some even told that the US does not grant asylum to people from Mexico. [5] Human Rights Watch has similarly claimed to find that CBP's initial contact does not follow procedural guidelines, and that it was failing to flag for a credible fear interview many individuals who were seeking asylum. [11]

Criticism of credible fear interviewers

Credible fear interviews have come under criticism on the following counts:

Criticism of the long wait times and continued detention

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency responsible for detaining people, has been criticized for inconsistent and unnecessary detention of asylum applicants after a favorable credible fear determination has been found, and the continued detention of people while they wait for their hearings has been said to contribute to their post-traumatic stress disorder. [5]

USCIS has also been criticized for long average wait times between the credible fear interview and the asylum case hearing. The average wait time, according to a 2014 report, was 578 days. [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

Immigration and Naturalization Service Former immigration service of the United States

The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor from 1933 to 1940 and the U.S. Department of Justice from 1940 to 2003.

Green card Lawful permanent residency in the United States

A green card, known officially as a permanent resident card, is an identity document which shows that a person has permanent residency in the United States. Green card holders are formally known as lawful permanent residents (LPRs). As of 2019, there are an estimated 13.9 million green card holders of whom 9.1 million are eligible to become United States citizens. Approximately 65,000 of them serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Wet feet, dry feet policy US policy on Cuban migrants between 1995 and 2017

The wet feet, dry feet policy or wet foot, dry foot policy was the name given to a former interpretation of the 1995 revision of the application of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 that essentially says that anyone who emigrated from Cuba and entered the United States would be allowed to pursue residency a year later. Prior to 1995, the U.S. government allowed all Cubans who reached U.S. territorial waters to remain in the U.S. After talks with the Cuban government, the Clinton administration came to an agreement with Cuba that it would stop admitting people intercepted in U.S. waters. For two decades thereafter, any Cuban caught on the waters between the two nations would summarily be returned to Cuba or sent to a third country, while one who made it to shore got a chance to remain in the United States, and later would qualify for expedited "legal permanent resident" status in accordance with the 1966 Act and eventually U.S. citizenship. On January 12, 2017, Barack Obama announced the immediate end of the policy.

Waiver of inadmissibility under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States is a federal relief available to certain removable aliens. It statutorily links cancellation of removal, which is another form of relief under the INA that operates parallel to waiver of inadmissibility. As such, an alien in removal proceedings needs only satisfy the requirements of one of them to be effectively saved from removal from the United States.

Parole (United States immigration)

Parole, in the immigration laws of the United States, generally refers to official permission to enter and remain temporarily in the United States, under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), without formal admission, and while remaining an applicant for admission.

Asylum in the United States Overview of the situation of the right for asylum in the United States of America

The United States recognizes the right of asylum for individuals as specified by international and federal law. A specified number of legally defined refugees who either apply for asylum from inside the U.S. or apply for refugee status from outside the U.S., are admitted annually.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided that the standard for withholding of removal, which was set in INS v. Stevic, was too high a standard for applicants for asylum to satisfy. In its place, consistent with the standard set by the United Nations, the Court in held that an applicant for asylum in the United States needs to demonstrate only a "well-founded fear" of persecution, which can be met even if the applicant does not show that he will more likely than not be persecuted if he is returned to his home country.

Adjustment of status in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States refers to the legal process of conferring permanent residency upon any alien who is a refugee, asylum seeker, nonpermanent resident, conditional entrant, parolee, and so forth.

The Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007 or STRIVE Act of 2007 is proposed United States legislation designed to address the problem of illegal immigration, introduced into the United States House of Representatives. Its supporters claim it would toughen border security, increase enforcement of and criminal penalties for illegal immigration, and establish an employment verification system to identify illegal aliens working in the United States. It would also establish new programs for both illegal aliens and new immigrant workers to achieve legal citizenship. Critics allege that the bill would turn law enforcement agencies into social welfare agencies as it would not allow CBP to detain illegal immigrants that are eligible for Z-visas and would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens with very few restrictions.

Removal proceedings are administrative proceedings to determine an individual's removability under United States immigration law. Removal proceedings are typically conducted in Immigration Court by an immigration judge (IJ).

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) is a non-profit legal services organization in Washington state. NWIRP's mission is to promote justice by defending and advancing the rights of immigrants through direct legal services, systemic advocacy, and community education.

The Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security under the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans.

Expedited removal is the term for a process related to immigration enforcement in the United States during which certain aliens are denied entry to and/or physically removed from the United States, without going through the normal removal proceedings. Whereas the legal authority for expedited removal allows for its use against most unauthorized entrants who have been in the United States for less than two years, its rollout so far has been restricted to people seeking admission and those who have been in the United States for 14 days or less, and excludes first-time violators from Mexico and Canada.

Reinstatement of removal in the United States refers to an immigration enforcement procedure in which a previously removed (deported) alien can again be removed for subsequent illegal reentry with no required judicial review except in very limited exceptional circumstances. The term "alien" means any person who is not an American.

Operation Streamline

Operation Streamline is a joint initiative of the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice in the United States, started in 2005, that adopts a "zero-tolerance" approach to unauthorized border-crossing by criminally prosecuting those perpetrating it. Up to 70 people are tried at the same time, sometimes wearing shackles in the courtroom. Entering without inspection is a misdemeanor, and re-entering after deportation is a felony.

The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000, also known as the LIFE Act and as the Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act, along with its Amendments, made some changes to laws surrounding immigration for family members of United States citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents, as well as people eligible for employment-based immigrant visas, in the direction of making it easier for family members and immigrant workers to move to and adjust status within the United States. It was passed on December 21, 2000, as title XI of Pub.L. 106–553 (text)(pdf).

Voluntary departure in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States is a legal remedy available to certain aliens who have been placed in removal proceedings by the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) or the now Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Withdrawal of application for admission is an option that U.S. Department of Homeland Security might offer to an Arriving Alien whereby the alien chooses to withdraw his or her application to enter the United States, and immediately departs the United States. Unlike an order of removal, a withdrawal of application for admission does not create a bar to future entry.

Deferred inspection is a procedure in immigration enforcement in the United States for Arriving Aliens. Here, the final decision on whether to admit the Arriving Alien, instead of being conducted at the port of entry where the alien arrived, is deferred to be carried out later at a deferred inspection site, while the alien is paroled into the United States. The guidelines followed at the deferred inspection site are largely the same as those followed by the officers at the port of entry, and are described in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Inspector's Field Manual. Aliens do not accrue unlawful presence between the time of arrival and the date of deferred inspection, but they do begin to accrue unlawful presence after their parole ends, if they are not successfully admitted at the deferred inspection site by then. The officers at both the port of entry and the deferred inspection site are part of the CBP Office of Field Operations.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Key Statistics and Findings on Asylum Protection at the U.S.-Mexico Border" (PDF). Human Rights First. June 1, 2014. Retrieved June 3, 2015.
  2. ↑ Ruth Ellen Wasem, Asylum and "Credible Fear" Issues in U.S. Immigration Policy, Congressional Research Service (April 6, 2011).
  3. 1 2 "8 CFR 208.30 - Credible fear determinations involving stowaways and applicants for admission found inadmissible pursuant to section 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7) of the Act". Legal Information Institute . Retrieved May 23, 2015.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 "Credible Fear FAQ". United States Citizenship and Immigration Services . Retrieved May 23, 2015.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Mexican and Central American Asylum and Credible Fear Claims: Background and Context". Immigration Policy Center. May 21, 2014. Retrieved May 23, 2015.
  6. ↑ "Questions and Answers: Credible Fear Screening". USCIS.gov. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Retrieved 17 October 2021.
  7. ↑ Hing, Bill Ong (2019). American presidents, deportations, and human rights violations : from Carter to Trump. Cambridge. p. 178. ISBN   9781108559690.
  8. ↑ "Parole of Arriving Aliens Found to Have a Credible Fear of Persecution or Torture" (PDF). Immigration and Customs Enforcement. December 8, 2009. Retrieved May 23, 2015.
  9. ↑ "Revised Parole Policy for Arriving Aliens with Credible Fear Claims". Immigration and Customs Enforcement. December 16, 2009. Retrieved May 23, 2015.
  10. ↑ Bekiempis, Victoria (November 15, 2014). "Is U.S. Customs and Border Protection Kicking Out Refugees?". NewsWeek . Retrieved May 23, 2015.
  11. 1 2 "III. Expedited Removal, Reinstatement of Removal, and Screening for Credible Fear". Human Rights Watch. October 16, 2014. Retrieved May 23, 2015.
  12. ↑ Lind, Dara (August 6, 2014). "Why keeping families together in immigration detention might not be much of a solution". Vox . Retrieved May 23, 2015.
  13. ↑ Hing, Bill (April 21, 2014). "Response to USCIS Credible Fear Memo" (PDF). Retrieved May 23, 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.