Immigration Equality et al. v. Mullin

For people seeking asylum, the stakes are life and death. This new rule is expected to funnel hundreds of thousands more asylum applications into an already overwhelmed immigration court system, erode due process, and result in even more wrongful denials of protection and deportations of people to countries where they face persecution or torture. 

The affirmative asylum interview was established to streamline the asylum process and improve the quality of adjudications. The asylum officer’s role is to serve as a neutral fact finder and fairly apply the law to the facts of the case based on the evidence. In an interview, an applicant has the opportunity to tell their story to an asylum officer who is required by law to have specialized training in country conditions, asylum law, and interview techniques.

By contrast, there are no such training requirements for immigration judges. In fact, the Trump administration has hired judges with no prior experience in immigration law, fired judges with years of experience, and brought in military lawyers to fill the gaps. In an immigration court hearing, an asylum seeker is not just presenting their case for protection. They are also defending themselves against deportation. They are forced to face a government attorney arguing that they should be denied asylum and deported.

Moreover, because immigration judges often terminate (“pretermit”) asylum applications without a hearing, under the new rule, many people will never receive any kind of hearing on their asylum applications before an immigration judge orders them deported.

Through our lawsuit, we are fighting to restore the right to an asylum interview and ensure that people fleeing persecution have a meaningful opportunity to tell their stories and have their claims adjudicated fairly.