This report calls on Congress to eliminate a technical asylum filing deadline in U.S. law that has barred thousands of legitimate refugees with well-founded fears of persecution from receiving asylum in the United States. The report finds that in the 12 years since the provision took effect, more than 53,400 asylum applications have been rejected, denied or delayed based on the deadline and many of these cases have been pushed unnecessarily into the already overstretched immigration court system. The report uses real case examples and Human Rights First's own refugee representation experience to demonstrate the harmful effects of the provision. That provision has consistently denied asylum to persecuted individuals in ways that are inconsistent with the nation's leadership in protecting victims of political, religious and other forms of persecution and has caused inefficiencies and delays in the asylum system and diverted significant governmental resources.

Since 1980, the Refugee Act has offered asylum to people who flee to the United States to escape persecution in their homeland. In 1996, however, Congress amended the law to bar asylum - regardless of the merit of the underlying claim - for any applicant who fails to apply within one year of entering the United States, unless the applicant qualifies for one of two exceptions to the rule. In the years since the bar was established, anecdotal reports have suggested that genuine refugees, with strong merits claims to asylum, have been rejected solely because of the deadline. Many scholars and practitioners suspected that this procedural bar had a dramatic effect on the U.S. asylum system. Until now, however, there has been no systematic, empirical study of the effects of the deadline on asylum seekers and the asylum system. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is the first level adjudicator of affirmative applications for asylum, supplied the authors exclusively with a database of asylum claims that has never before been analyzed. This database includes demographic and other characteristics of all principal applicants for asylum before DHS since September 1998 - more than 300,000 cases - and the decision reached in each case. In this article, the authors report, for the very first time, what that database shows about DHS's application of the one year deadline. They find, among other things, that: •Over the entire time frame studied, DHS determined that nearly a third of all affirmative asylum applicants missed the filing deadline. •In the years immediately after the deadline went into effect (FY 1998-FY 2002), DHS found only 27% of applicants to be late, but after that, DHS determined a significantly higher percentage to be late (35% from FY 2003 through June 8, 2009). •DHS has rejected the applications (finding no applicable exception) in the cases of 59% of those who were determined to have filed late (18% of all affirmative asylum applicants). •Applicants from certain countries such as the Gambia and Sierra Leone are much more disadvantaged by the deadline than applicants from certain other countries, such as Haiti and India. The deadline may particularly impact refugees who, upon arrival, are unable to find a community of emigrants from their home countries who could warn them about its existence. •It is likely that as a result of the deadline, since April 1998 DHS has rejected more than 15,000 asylum applications (involving more than 21,000 refugees) that would otherwise have been granted. The authors conclude that because the costs of the one-year deadline exceed its benefits, it should be repealed, as proposed by several bills that have been introduced in Congress.

Although Americans generally think that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is focused only on preventing terrorism, one office within that agency has a humanitarian mission. Its Asylum Office adjudicates applications from people fleeing persecution in their homelands. Lives in the Balance is a careful empirical analysis of how Homeland Security decided these asylum cases over a recent fourteen-year period. Day in and day out, asylum officers make decisions with life-or-death consequences: determining which applicants are telling the truth and are at risk of persecution in their home countries, and which are ineligible for refugee status in America. In Lives in the Balance, the authors analyze a database of 383,000 cases provided to them by the government in order to better understand the effect on grant rates of a host of factors unrelated to the merits of asylum claims, including the one-year filing deadline, whether applicants entered the United States with a visa, whether applicants had dependents, whether they were represented, how many asylum cases their adjudicator had previously decided, and whether or not their adjudicator was a lawyer. The authors also examine the degree to which decisions were consistent among the eight regional asylum offices and within each of those offices. The authors’ recommendations­, including repeal of the one-year deadline­, would improve the adjudication process by reducing the impact of non-merits factors on asylum decisions. If adopted by the government, these proposals would improve the accuracy of outcomes for those whose lives hang in the balance.

"This book is an optimal tool for instructors and students of graduate classes in social work and related disciplines." --Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health "I applaud social work students, professors, and social workers who seek to serve and empower the immigrant community. This text is a great tool toward raising awareness of the many issues immigrants face, and helping them find solutions." --Frank Sharry, Executive Director, America's Voice "The book is a major contribution to social workers and their clients as it addresses advocacy on behalf of immigrants and refugees during a social, economic and political period that restricts immigrants' rights and service access." --Dr. Diane Drachman, Associate Professor, University of Connecticut School of Social Work Successful social work with immigrants must begin with an understanding of their legal status and how that status impacts their housing, employment, health care, education, and virtually every other aspect of life. Chang-Muy and Congress present social workers with the only book on the market to emphasize the legal aspect of immigrant issues as well as critical practice and advocacy issues. Topics discussed include historical and current trends in immigration, applicable theories for practice with immigrants, policy and advocacy methods, and the need for cultural competence. By providing comprehensive coverage of both the legal and practice issues of this complex field, this book will help social service professionals and graduate students increase their cultural sensitivity and work more effectively with immigrants. Key Features: Covers the latest aspects of the immigration debate and discusses how social workers are affected by emerging immigration policies Discusses special populations such as refugees, elderly immigrants, and victims of international trafficking Includes case studies on the most critical issues immigrants face today: legal processes, physical and mental health issues, employment difficulties, family conflicts, and more Instructional Materials Available! Free to instructors with a verified order of seven or more copies. Email [email protected] to request syllabus and PowerPoint slides.

First published in 2000. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

Asylum is a complex area of immigration law and policy. While much of the recent debate surrounding asylum has focused on efforts by the Trump Administration to address asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. southern border, U.S. asylum policies have long been a subject of discussion. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, as originally enacted, did not contain any language on asylum. Asylum provisions were added and then revised by a series of subsequent laws. Currently, the INA provides for the granting of asylum to an alien who applies for such relief in accordance with applicable requirements and is determined to be a refugee. The INA defines a refugee, in general, as a person who is outside his or her country of nationality and is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Under current law and regulations, aliens who are in the United States or who arrive in the United States, regardless of immigration status, may apply for asylum (with exceptions). An asylum application is affirmative if an alien who is physically present in the United States (and is not in removal proceedings) submits an application to the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). An asylum application is defensive when the applicant is in standard removal proceedings with the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and requests asylum as a defense against removal. An asylum applicant may receive employment authorization 180 days after the application filing date. Special asylum provisions apply to aliens who are subject to a streamlined removal process known as expedited removal. To be considered for asylum, these aliens must first be determined by a USCIS asylum officer to have a credible fear of persecution. Under the INA, credible fear of persecution means that ﷿there is a significant possibility, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the alien's claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum.﷿ Individuals determined to have a credible fear may apply for asylum during standard removal proceedings. Asylum may be granted by USCIS or EOIR. There are no numerical limitations on asylum grants. If an alien is granted asylum, his or her spouse and children may also be granted asylum, as dependents. A grant of asylum does not expire, but it may be terminated under certain circumstances. After one year of physical presence in the United States as asylees, an alien and his or her spouse and children may be granted lawful permanent resident status, subject to certain requirements. The Trump Administration has taken a variety of steps that would limit eligibility for asylum. As of the date of this report, legal challenges to these actions are ongoing. For its part, the 115th Congress considered asylum-related legislation, which generally would have tightened the asylum system. Several bills contained provisions that, among other things, would have amended INA provisions on termination of asylum, credible fear of persecution, frivolous asylum applications, and the definition of a refugee. Key policy considerations about asylum include the asylum application backlog, the grounds for granting asylum, the credible fear of persecution threshold, frivolous asylum applications, employment authorization, variation in immigration judges﷿ asylum decisions, and safe third country agreements.