Hawaii Attorney General Clare E. Connors today joined another coalition making it 9 just this month. Most with the same team of 22 attorneys generals, led by California, in two amicus briefs in support of two separate challenges to a Trump Administration rule that guts major aspects of the existing asylum system and effectively eliminates the meaningful right to apply for protection in the United States.

The coalition believes that by severely restricting asylum eligibility and abolishing certain procedural protections, the so-called “death to asylum” rule will result in the deportation of bona fide asylum seekers who are certain to face persecution or torture in their home countries. As a result, the rule will inflict direct harm on asylum seekers and the states that welcome them across the country.

“This rule means our country no longer will serve as a place of refuge for people legitimately seeking asylum because of persecution,” said Attorney General Connors. “It also will burden the states by driving individuals underground and into the margins of our society.”

Set to go in effect on January 11, 2021, the final rule will make it nearly impossible for people to successfully obtain humanitarian relief in the United States. Supporters have long said that these consequences will fall hardest on survivors of trauma, and victims of gender, gang, and homophobic violence. The rule threatens to do so through a wide range of artificial and arbitrary new barriers. For example, the rule creates a list of adverse discretionary factors that would provide a basis for unilaterally denying even meritorious asylum applications. These discretionary factors include barring asylum seekers who do not enter with inspection through a port of entry or who do not seek protection from a third country through which they have traveled, even if seeking asylum in the third country is dangerous or infeasible. In addition, the rule inexplicably applies many of these same discretionary factors to unaccompanied children, making them more likely to be denied asylum and undermining critical safeguards for minors. Ultimately, the rule will make it all but impossible for asylum seekers to secure protection.

In the friend-of-the-court briefs, the coalition argues, among other things, that the rule will:

•Undermine our country’s and the states’ commitment to being a safe haven for asylees fleeing persecution by upending the current asylum system and increasing family separation;

•Hinder enforcement of legal protections and criminal laws by pushing those who might otherwise seek asylum into the shadows where they are more vulnerable to exploitation;

•Burden state programs, leading to an increased need for legal representation to navigate the extremely complex asylum process made even more complex by this rule, as well as medical and mental health services; and

•Harm the states’ economies and workforces, robbing them of essential workers and their contributions to local businesses.In filing the amicus briefs,

Attorney General Connors joins the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

The administration says that its objective is to “more effectively separate baseless claims from meritorious ones,” which “will better ensure groundless claims do not delay or divert resources from deserving claims.”

An asylum application is considered an “affirmative” application if it is filed with USCIS by aliens who are not in removal proceedings. It is considered “defensive” if the applicant is in removal proceedings and makes the request as a defense against removal.

According to DHS’ Refugees and Asylees Annual Flow Report for 2019, aliens filed 96,952 affirmative and 210,752 defensive applications in fiscal 2019.

As of the end of the third quarter of fiscal 2020, there were 373,957 affirmative asylum applications pending at USCIS.

Defensive asylum applications are not submitted until the applicant is in a removal hearing, so it is harder to determine what the defensive application backlog is. It is apparent, however, that the immigration courts can’t keep up with their cases. As of the end of October 2020, they had a backlog of more than 1.2 million cases.

But what exactly does this new rule from the Trump administration do? According to the Trump Administration. Here are some highlights:

Expedited removal proceedings — Aliens who are apprehended within the interior of the country generally are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge with all of the rights and privileges accorded by 8 USC §1229a. However, aliens who are apprehended in the vicinity of the border after making an illegal entry or who seek admission at a port of entry without a visa may be subject to the expedited removal proceedings provided by 8 USC §1225 (b)(1).

In expedited removal proceedings, aliens are removed without a hearing unless they establish that they have a “credible fear” of persecution. Under current regulations, this entitles them to the full hearing provided by 8 USC §1229a.

The rule will reduce the amount of time required to hear these cases by limiting their proceedings to an “asylum only” hearing, which will provide a streamlined, more efficient removal process.

Credible fear —The credible fear standard is too easy to satisfy.

According to Justice Department adjudication statistics for fiscal 2008 through fiscal 2019, 81 percent of the aliens who claimed a fear of persecution were able to establish a credible fear — and therefore be put in queue for an asylum hearing. But many of these people either weren’t bona fide asylum seekers or had meritless persecution claims. Only 14 percent of the aliens who established a credible fear of persecution were granted asylum at their hearings. In fact, 45 percent of them didn’t even apply for asylum.

The current regulations only require the alien to establish a “significant” possibility that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of the protected grounds to establish a credible fear. The rule raises the standard to a “reasonable” possibility.

Frivolous applications — Current regulations provide that an alien found to have “knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum” is “permanently ineligible for any immigration benefits.” The rule clarifies that “knowingly” requires either actual knowledge of frivolousness or willful blindness toward it.ADVERTISING

Particular social group — The rule codifies long-standing standards from case law for identifying a particular social group, such as that a particular social group must be composed of members who share a common, immutable characteristic; be socially distinct; and not be defined exclusively by the alleged harm.

Definition of “persecution” — The rule provides that persecution requires an intent to target a belief or characteristic of the alien and the infliction of a severe level of harm by the government or by persons or an organization that the government is unable or unwilling to control.

“On account of” — The rule provides a list of reasons for harming an alien that “generally” cannot be attributed to the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Internal relocation — If it would have been reasonable for an asylum applicant to have avoided persecution by living in a different location within his own country, he might not be eligible for asylum. The rule sets forth a list of factors that adjudicators should consider in determining whether internal relocation was a reasonable option.

It also establishes a presumption that relocation would have been a reasonable option if the persecutor was not the government unless the applicant demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation would not have been a reasonable option.

Discretionary factors — The rule provides factors that should be considered when determining whether an applicant merits asylum as a matter of discretion. Asylum is discretionary. 8 USC §1158(b)(1)(A) says that the Attorney General “may grant asylum” to eligible aliens.

The firm resettlement bar — The rule identifies circumstances under which an alien would be considered to have been firmly resettled, which would make him statutorily ineligible for asylum.

Objection

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) claims that the rule will devastate the asylum system by making it nearly impossible for most applicants to successfully claim humanitarian protection in the United States.

• Dozens of Cuban migrants protest at US-Mexico border, seek asylum
• California sets new coronavirus daily death record with 442

The immigrants and their advocates in the United States may not know how narrow our asylum laws really are.

8 USC §1158(b)(1) limits asylum to aliens who can establish that they have been persecuted or have “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

It has to be a well-founded fear of “persecution” — it can’t be a fear of any other kind of harm.  And the persecution has to be “on account of” one of the protected grounds. It can’t be for any other reason.

Should every alien who appears at our border and says he wants asylum should get a hearing? Is that even in the realm of possibly?

A copy of the amicus brief in Pangea Legal Services v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security is available here.

A copy of the amicus brief in Immigration Equality v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security is available here.