Proposed Changes to the Asylum Regulations

The African Advocacy network condemns the proposed changes to the asylum regulations released by the Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Office of Immigration Review. These regulations would effectively gut the asylum system that provides essential protections to the members of our community. Please read our comment on the proposed regulations submitted on July 15, 2020, urging the government to withdraw these proposals in their entirety. To date, these changes remain only a proposal and the government is currently in the process of reviewing the comments submitted by the public.

——

July 15, 2020 

[Submitted via www.regulations.gov] 

Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director,  

Office of Policy,  

Executive Office for Immigration Review,  

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1800, Falls Church, VA 22041 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,  

Office of Management and Budget,  

725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503;  

Attention: Desk Officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS 

RE: RIN 1125-AA94 or EOIR Docket No. 18-0002, Public Comment Opposing Proposed  Rules on Asylum, and Collection of Information OMB Control Number 1615-0067 

Our organization, the African Advocacy Network, submits this comment urging the  Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to withdraw the proposed rules on asylum in their entirety. Asylum provides a safe haven for tens of thousands of  vulnerable refugees, and these proposed regulations violate the United States’ domestic law and  its obligations under international law. Further, the rules as written would eliminate asylum and  due process for the vast majority of asylum seekers. The United States will no longer be a leader  in providing humanitarian protection, upholding human rights, and standing as a pillar of  democratic freedom. We urge you not to allow that to happen. 

The African Advocacy Network’s mission is to provide every African and Afro-Caribbean  expat with the dignity and legal protection they deserve while easing the many cultural and legal  obstacles faced by this immigrant community. Through both full scope affirmative and defensive  asylum representation, our organization serves hundreds of African and Afro-Caribbean expats  and has secured asylum for hundreds of members of our community. Our organization also  provides assistance to those in detention seeking asylum pro se through legal consultations and interpretation services. In addition to legal services, the African Advocacy Network engages with  our community through outreach, education, and social services. As such, our expertise as an  organization lies in the impact that these regulations would have on the African and Afro Caribbean populations who migrate to the United States. Having served this community for over  a decade, our grassroots organization has particular insight into the difficulties this community  faces and the irreparable harm they will endure if these proposed rules go into effect.  

Furthermore, because these regulations cover a wide array of asylum law, we are not able to  comment on every proposed change. Even if we do not comment on a particular change to the  regulations, we in no way endorse that section of the proposed regulations. We oppose the latter  in their entirety and call for their complete withdrawal. 

We Object to the Agencies Only Allowing 30 Days to Respond to Comment on the  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

These proposed regulations make expansive changes to the asylum process and substantive  law that have existed and developed in the United States for decades. The NPRM are over 160  pages long with more than 60 of those pages being the substantive proposed regulations. The  sheer quantity of pages to review and the wide array of substantive changes they alter are reason  enough for a longer period for comments to be submitted. The 30-day comment period appears  to be a means to push through these regulations as quickly as possible without regard for the  detrimental impact they will have on our nation as a whole. Changes this vast should be given  adequate time for the input of the communities they affect and should not be implemented in an  expedient manner without regard for the repercussions they will have.  

Under any circumstances, it is abhorrent for the government to give such a short time period  to comment on changes that are this extensive and create so many changes to our current system,  but the challenges to respond to the NPRM now are magnified by the ongoing COVID-19  pandemic. Our office remains closed and our staff continues to work remotely. Both the inability  to gather as an organization to extensively discuss the impact these regulations would have and  the inability to meet directly with the population and community we represent and serve create  huge barriers to our ability to fully delineate our reasons for objecting to the proposed rule. For  this procedural reason alone, we urge the administration to rescind the proposed rule. If it wishes  to reissue the proposed regulations, it should grant the public at least 60 days to have adequate  time to provide comprehensive comments. 

We Strongly Object to the Substance of the Proposed Rule and Urge the  Administration to Rescind it in its Entirety 

Despite the unreasonable 30-day timeframe in which to submit a comment to the proposed  rules, the African Advocacy Network felt compelled to devote already pressed time and  resources to comment on the changes that would entirely gut our asylum system and negatively  impact our community and the nation as a whole. These proposed regulations would result in the  denial of virtually all asylum applications as they would remove due process protections from the  asylum process, re-write decades of well-established jurisprudence, impose new bars, heighten  legal standards, and create mandatory denials as a matter of discretion. As noted above, we may  not be able to cover every topic that we would have liked to oppose because of the constricted  timeframe in which to respond, but we felt it necessary to comment in the capacity that we are  able because of the enormous negative impact these proposed regulations will have on our  community. 

8 CFR § 1208.13 (e)—The Proposed Rule Would Deprive Asylum Seekers of Their Day  in Court 

Section 8 CFR § 1208.13 (e) would allow immigration judges to deny asylum to asylum  seekers before they have the opportunity to present their claim at a hearing or have an  opportunity to testify. Sua sponte or at the request of a DHS attorney, a judge could “pretermit” 

2 

an asylum claim after an application is submitted if the judge determines that that application  alone does not adequately state a claim.  

Allowing judges to “pretermit” claims would deny asylum seekers their due process rights,  disturbing decades of precedent reiterating that immigrants have a right to due process in  immigration court. See Matter of Fefe, 20 I&N Dec. 116, 118 (BIA 1989) (“In the ordinary  course, however, we consider the full examination of an applicant to be an essential aspect of the  asylum adjudication process for reasons related to fairness to the parties and to the integrity of  the asylum process itself”); Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzalez, 405 F.3d 1049, 1057 (9th Cir. 2005). 

This ability to “pretermit” applications is of grave concern to our organization because often, by the time we retain clients, they have already submitted an I-589 application prior to obtaining counsel in order to comply with the one-year filing deadline. An application would only be safe from being pretermitted if the preparer of the application had a comprehensive understanding of asylum law, which is only made more complicated by the other new proposed regulations. Our organization has witnessed that our community suffers from a lack of access to resources, literacy, and extreme language barriers, which impede their ability to understand fully the complex nature of our immigration system. Further, these issues are exacerbated for the clients that our organization serves in detention. Our organization has provided pro se assistance to asylum seekers who speak only specific dialects from their region in Africa. Without our organization’s language capacity to explain asylum law and the requirements on the I-589 form, these individuals would not have been granted protection despite having suffered extensive persecution in their countries of origin. 

Further, this requirement of ensuring that the I-589 includes all the intimate details to establish an asylum claim is unrealistic for those who have experienced extensive trauma. In our staff’s experience of working with survivors of trauma for years, it takes time to build rapport with an individual that will allow them to divulge sensitive details of past abuse and persecution. Oftentimes, this rapport building requires that we send our clients to ongoing therapy with a professional before we are even able to discuss their past persecution with them. Further, our staff has witnessed first-hand the impact trauma has on the ability to remember past incidents of persecution. As such, requiring all details to be laid out in an I-589 application which is subject to strict temporal filing requirements is ignorant to the reality of the limitations of those with truly meritorious claims. 

For example, our organization represented a Haitian women who came in for an intake one week before her one year filing deadline. She had been a victim of a kidnapping and sexual assault in her home country and did not disclose these intimate and traumatizing details of what she had endured in her first few meetings with our staff. Nevertheless, our organization filed a skeletal application to preserve her eligibility for asylum and continued to work with her with culturally competent interpreters and therapists. After many meetings and months of collaboration and healing, she was able to share the details of all that she had endured in Haiti. She was eventually granted asylum before the immigration court and was clearly eligible for asylum based on all the persecution she had experienced. If the judge had the authority to pretermit her claim based solely on her application, she would have likely been denied asylum

3 

and never had the opportunity to present her case in court after working to process all the trauma and the persecution she suffered. 

Allowing immigration judges to deny asylum cases without even taking any testimony or  looking beyond the asylum application would inevitably lead to meritorious cases being denied  and vulnerable asylum seekers being returned to harm. We oppose this proposed change in the  strongest possible terms. 

8 CFR § 208.1(c); 8 CFR § 1208.1(c)— The Proposed Rule Will Make it Virtually  Impossible to Prevail on a Particular Social Group Claim 

Applicants for asylum and withholding of removal are legally required to demonstrate that  the persecution they fear is on account of a protected characteristic: race, religion, nationality,  membership in a particular social group (PSG), or political opinion. INA § 101(a)(42).  Membership in a particular social group in this list was designed to allow the refugee definition  to be flexible and capture those who do not fall within the other listed characteristics. “The term  membership of a particular social group should be read in an evolutionary manner, open to the  diverse and changing nature of groups in various societies and evolving international human  rights norms.” The United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) Guidelines On  International Protection defines “Membership of a particular social group” within the context of  Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees,  May 7, 2002, https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/publications/legal/3d58de2da/guidelines international-protection-2-membership-particular-social-group.html. The new proposed asylum  regulations regarding PSGs would overturn decades of legal precedent and advancement in  protection and lead to unreasonable denials. 

Critically, this rule requires that an asylum seeker state the exact PSGs before the  immigration judge or she/he will be unable to argue the PSG in the future, even if ineffective  assistance of counsel is determined in her/his prior proceedings. The complicated and ever evolving nature of the PSG analysis makes this requirement effectively a bar to many PSG  claims. This presents extreme due process issues, especially given the Attorney General’s ability  to issue precedential decisions amending prior case law that set forth cognizable PSGs. Many of  the clients we represent in affirmative and defensive asylum claims seek relief on the basis of  PSGs, many of which evolve over the course of their representation. The enactment of this  regulation would lead to arbitrary denials of legitimate asylum claims and violate every asylum  seekers right to due process and ability to argue for why she is eligible for protection.  

Our organization assists many individuals who experience persecution on account of their  membership in a PSG. For example, our organization represented an Ivorian woman who was  targeted by her late husband’s family because she refused to return her inheritance to them after  the death of her husband. She was persecuted by them because of her gender and her familial  role. Under these new regulations, this woman who experienced extensive harm and would have  likely been killed if forced to return to the Ivory Coast, would not have been granted asylum. The  imposition of this regulation would inevitably lead to the denial of most asylum applications and  subject a huge vulnerable population to persecution, harm, and death upon their denial of their  asylum applications. 

4 

8 CFR § 208.1(d); 8 CFR § 1208.1(d)—The Proposed Rule Redefines Political Opinion  Contravening Long-Established Principles 

The proposed rule would redefine “political opinion” and completely overturn existing law.  The proposed rule states that political opinion claims can only be based on “furtherance of a  discrete cause related to political control of a state or a unit thereof.” The proposed rule goes on  to explicitly reject the possibility that an applicant’s expression of opposition to terrorist or gang  organizations can qualify as a political opinion, unless the asylum seeker’s “expressive behavior”  is “related to efforts by the state to control such organizations or behavior that is antithetical to or  otherwise opposes the ruling legal entity of the state or a legal sub-unit of the state.” However,  this restriction utterly fails to recognize that many asylum seekers flee their homelands precisely  because the government of their country is unable or unwilling to control non-state actors and  that often political opinions entangle not with just the political control of a state, but also in  various social issues such as rights for minorities, LBTQ individuals, and women. Legal  precedent already has recognized that these opinions are political in nature and would allow an  individual to be granted asylum. Narrowing the definition of political opinion in this manner  would be to deny the political nature of many activists who flee persecution because of the  repressive nature of their governments or non-state actors which effectively control their country  of origin. 

Our organization has represented many individuals who were severely persecuted because of  their support of social issues. Amending the definition of political opinion would deny these  individuals protection for standing up for their own rights and others and undermine the core  values of the United States that has held itself as a nation who allows for freedom of expression  and the ability to challenge injustices and uphold individual rights. To deny the brave individuals  who act as a voice for the oppressed would be an appalling step backward for the United States.  

Our organization represented a man from South Sudan who worked for a non-violent peace  force. He spoke out against the use of child soldiers by rebel groups and sought to secure  children’s release from this dangerous and abhorrent practice. He was then targeted by these  rebel groups and received numerous death threats for his political opinion. Under these new  proposed regulations, an individual like this man, who crusades for the voiceless and risks his  own life to save others, would be unjustly denied asylum because speaking out against the use of  child soldiers by rebel groups would no longer be deemed a political opinion. This situation  shows the unjust and arbitrary denials the implementation of this new rule would impose.  

8 CFR § 208.1(e); 8 CFR § 1208.1(e)— The Proposed Rule Narrowly Defines  Persecution, Impermissibly Altering the Accepted Definition 

The most fundamental aspect of asylum law is the obligation of countries to protect  individuals with well-founded fears of persecution from being returned to harm. I.N.S. v.  Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 428, (1987). The proposed rule would, for the first time,  provide a regulatory definition of persecution. This definition is extremely limited and forecloses  many types of harm that were previously determined to be persecution. The rule places an 

5 

emphasis on the fact that the harm must be “extreme” and that threats must be “exigent” in order  to constitute persecution. This proposed rule fails to provide that an adjudicator should consider  the experience of children as unique from adults and should recognize cumulative harm in the  determination of severity of persecution.  

Under the proposed rule, those who experienced brief but repeated detentions over a period  of time would likely not be determined to have experienced persecution. Many of the asylum  seekers we assist, for example from Cameroon, have experienced multiple detentions due to their  political opinion, ranging in length, at the hands of the Cameroonian government. Many of these  individuals would no longer be seen as having experienced past persecution due to the “brief”  nature of their detention. This ignores the reality that repeated detentions deprive an individual of  their freedom and their ability to express themselves. It also ignores the impact of repeated  detention, no matter the length, and its repercussions on an individual living in a perpetual state  of fear of being re-detained. One client in particular from Cameroon became aware of illegal  activity being carried out by the government. When he drew attention to this issue, he was  kidnapped for a day and beaten. This “brief” detention under the new regulations may not be  deemed to be persecution; however, the traumatic effect and the real harm to this client in our  organization’s experience in working with him showed that he was clearly a survivor of  persecution. This new proposed rule also ignores that while one “brief” detention might not  amount to persecution, the harm suffered by our clients must be viewed in the aggregate. After  being granted asylum, this individual has gone on to become an incredible member of his  community as both an advocate and a community organizer. To deny an incredible individual  like him humanitarian protection in our country would be a great loss and travesty to our nation.  

8 CFR § 208.1(f); 8 CFR § 1208.1(f)—The Proposed Rule Imposes a Laundry List of  Anti-Asylum Measures Under the Guise of “Nexus” 

The new regulations also severely restrict what can qualify as a “nexus” to demonstrate  eligibility for asylum. Courts have continuously and universally stated that nexus determinations  should be made on a case-by-case basis; however, this proposed rule would overturn long standing precedent and instead, allow for blanket denials of claims that have long been found to  meet the requirements of asylum. This proposed regulation lists out a number of harms that  would no longer meet the standard. Shockingly, one of these harms is “criminal activity.”  Almost all harm that would meet the standard of persecution is an action that is criminalized.  Thus this regulation eliminates the ability to grant asylum on the ground of any form of private  harm.  

Also, of great concern to our organization is the inclusion of gender in this laundry list of  harms that could not demonstrate nexus. The categorical denial of all cases where gender is a  motivation to the persecution suffered is appalling, discriminatory, and contrary to longstanding  domestic and international law. Many women and girls experience persecution as a direct result  of their gender, which is immutable, socially distinct, and particular under our circuit’s  jurisprudence. See Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2010) (“women in a particular  country, regardless of ethnicity or clan membership, could form a particular social group”). To  deny protection to these individuals is a huge step backward in our evolution of protection of  asylum seekers. Our organization has assisted many women in obtaining asylum specifically 

6 

because of their gender and the harms these individuals would have experienced if denied  asylum are unimaginable. It is incomprehensible why this administration wants to deny the  reality that today, women are still persecuted and harmed simply because of their gender. For  example, our organization represented an elder Eritrean woman who was a severely traumatized  survivor of female genital mutilation/cutting (“FGM/C”) and was granted asylum on this basis.  To force her to return to Eritrea would have been inhumane given the violent and archaic act she  had suffered solely because she was born a female. This is just one example of a multitude of  harms women and girls experience that make them eligible for humanitarian protection based on  their gender. To categorically deny these claims would have a devastating impact. 

Additionally, this proposed regulation undercuts the intent of the INA and in fact runs in  direct controversy to Congress’ intent. INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(i) states that a protected ground be  “at least one central reason” for the persecution. This specifically allows for a mixed-motive  analysis while the proposed regulations in their current form do not allow for mixed motives.  

8 CFR § 208.13; 8 CFR § 1208.13—The Proposed Rule Imposes a Laundry List of Anti Asylum Measures Under the Guise of “Discretion” 

In addition to meeting the legal standard, asylum seekers must merit a favorable exercise of  discretion. I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 423, (1987). For decades, the United States  has recognized that “the danger of persecution should generally outweigh all but the most  egregious of adverse factors.” Matter of Pula, 19 I&N Dec. 467, 474 (BIA 1987). The new  proposed regulations would overturn years of case law and require the discretionary denial of  most asylum applications. These regulations are written with ignorance to the realities that most  asylum seekers face and do not take into account the dangers and barriers that true asylum  seekers face. Although we oppose all the discretionary factors laid out in this proposed rule, we  will illuminate the problems with only a few. 

These proposed regulations would require an immigration judge to deny asylum to an  individual who uses or attempts to use a fraudulent document to enter the United States, unless  they are arriving directly from their country of origin. This runs in direct controversy to  established jurisprudence which recognizes that the use of false documents actually supports an  asylum claim. See Mamouzian v. Ashcroft, 390 F3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that using false  documents to enter flee and gain entry to the U.S. is worth little if any weight in a discretionary  analysis and that the use of false documentation or making false statements to gain entry  supports a claim of fear of persecution, it does not detract from it); Matter of Pula, 19 I. & N.  Dec. 467 (BIA 1987) (holding that the manner of entrance to the U.S. is only one of many  factors that are considered in the discretionary determination of an application for asylum). In  our experience working with African immigrants, the reality of many who flee persecution is that  they cross the border into another neighboring country to attempt to secure temporary safety. For  example, one of our clients crossed the border from his country of origin, Rwanda, where he was  repeatedly tortured, including an attempted amputation, for his political opinion to seek safety in  a neighboring Uganda but was eventually discovered by spies from the government of Rwanda. He was only able to flee and find true safety by obtaining a passport from Uganda in order to fly  to the United States. He could not travel on a Rwandan passport because the government was  torturing and persecuting him. To do so would be a death sentence. Under this new proposed 

7 

regulation, he would be denied asylum simply because of the reality and desperation of his  situation forcing him to flee persecution. As such, this proposed discretionary consideration runs in direct controversy to not only the law and the reality of asylum seekers, but also to logical  reasoning. 

Another shocking inclusion under the discretionary factors is the consideration of living in  the United States for more than one year without lawful status. This proposal runs contrary to the  plain language of INA § 208(a)(2)(d), which explicitly allows exceptions to the one year filing  deadline for asylum based on changed or extraordinary circumstances. Congress created  exceptions to the one-year bar so that applicants with legitimate claims for asylum were not  returned to persecution for “technical deficiencies.” 142 Cong. Rec. S11838-40 (daily ed. Sept.  30, 1996)(statement of Sen. Orrin Hatch). However, this proposed regulation would make these  exceptions essentially worthless, as anyone who meets an exception would then be denied  asylum regardless as a matter of discretion. This is problematic for two main reasons. First, it  ignores the reality that many individuals live in the United States and have no need to seek  asylum for many years until there are changed circumstances in their country of origin. More  alarmingly, this proposed rule also ignores the fact that asylum seekers are often the victims of  severe trauma and hence suffer from mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder.  To enact this proposed regulation would be to eliminate these exceptions clearly intended by  Congress and to reject meritorious asylum claims simply because individuals are suffering  natural and often inevitable mental health consequences of persecution. A woman from Senegal  came to our organization seeking immigration relief. She had been living in the United States  without status for some time; however, she was not able to articulate to us why she feared  returning to Senegal. Our organization sent her to culturally competent therapy, and after many  sessions, she returned to our organization with a legitimate fear of return on the basis that she  identifies as a lesbian. She only was able to acknowledge this herself as a result of the therapy  she had undergone and after many years. Under the new regulations, this individual would be  punished for not processing through her past experiences and finally identifying her sexual  orientation within a timely enough manner. To impose this temporal limit on such intimate and  complex identity issues is unrealistic, inhumane, insensitive, and unacceptable.  

These are just two examples as to why these discretionary considerations as a whole are  unacceptable and blind to the realities of asylum seekers’ experience in the United States. 

8 CFR § 208.20; 8 CFR § 1208.20—The Proposed Rule Impermissibly Heightens the  Legal Standards for Credible and Reasonable Fear Interviews and Will Turn Away  Refugees Without Providing Them a Full Hearing  

The proposed rule would also make it significantly more difficult for asylum seekers subject  to expedited removal to have their request for asylum fully considered by an immigration judge.  When Congress added expedited removal to the INA, it intentionally set the standard for the  credible fear interview—significant possibility—low so that genuine refugees are not deported to  persecution. Under this rule, the government redefines the broad “significant possibility”  standard to mean “a substantial and realistic possibility of succeeding.” This language  contradicts the clear language of “significant possibility” that Congress set forth at INA §  235(b)(1)(B)(v). As such, it cannot be implemented. The proposed rule would also greatly 

8 

increase the burden on those who would be eligible for only withholding of removal or  protection under CAT to pass an initial interview and pursue their claim before an immigration  judge. Under the proposed rule, asylum seekers who would be subject to a bar on asylum,  presumably including those recently promulgated by the administration such as the “transit ban”  found at 8 CFR § 208.13 (c)(4)(ii) that bar the vast majority of asylum seekers arriving at the  southern border, would have to meet this significantly heightened requirement to even be  permitted to have their case heard before an immigration judge. With these provisions in the  proposed rules, the government would essentially eliminate the “significant possibility” legal  standard adopted by Congress in the INA and replace it with a higher “reasonable possibility”  standard, which is far more difficult for asylum seekers to meet.  

Denying individuals an opportunity to present their asylum claim before an immigration  judge is a denial of due process. Many of our clients who have been granted asylum underwent  the credible fear process in order to obtain asylum. Heightening the standard these individuals  must meet before being given an opportunity to present their case is in direct opposition to the  system that Congress codified and conflicts with traditional notions of due process in our county.  

8 CFR § 208.18; 8 CFR § 1208.18— The Proposed Rule Imposes a Nearly Impossible  Evidentiary Burden on Those Seeking CAT Protection 

The new rule would also curtail protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and  make deportation imminent and all but certain the vast majority of individuals fleeing torture or  the threat of torture. The new proposed regulation states that an applicant must demonstrate that  a government official who has inflicted torture has done so “under color of law” and is not a  “rogue official.” The regulation ignores the actual circumstances under which people flee for  their lives. Clearly, if an official claims to be acting in an official capacity, is wearing an official  uniform, or otherwise makes it known to the applicant that they are a government official, a CAT  applicant would have no reason to know whether the official is acting lawfully or as a “rogue”  official. Requiring an applicant for protection to obtain this kind of detailed information from a  government official who has tortured or threatened the applicant with torture is unreasonable  and, in most cases, impossible.  

Our organization is especially concerned about the changes to protection under CAT as it  provides non-discretionary relief to those who fear torture upon removal. During this time of  awareness of the systemic injustices in our criminal justice system on the basis of race, a number  of our clients face deportation as a result of criminal convictions that arose out of an inherently  racist system that disproportionately impacts and convicts black individuals. In fact, some studies  show that black individuals are incarcerated at a rate five times that of white individuals.  National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Criminal Justice Fact  Sheet, https://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/. As a result, a number of our clients  placed in removal proceedings who fear harm upon removal are left with CAT as their sole form  of relief due to criminal bars. Further limiting this already restricted form of relief would  inevitably disproportionately impact individuals of color who already face systemic injustice in  their criminal proceedings. 

9 

8 CFR § 208.31(g) – The Proposed Rule Denies Immigrants the Ability to Pursue Other  Avenues of Relief After a Positive Credible Fear Determination 

The new proposed rule would restrict those who are able to pass the credible fear screening  process to only applying for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. This ignores  other possible forms of humanitarian relief and perpetuates family separation. It deprives victims  of human trafficking and crimes from being able to apply for U and T visas. This is in direct  contradiction to the INA and TVPRA passed by Congress, which clearly intend to provide  protections to these protected individuals. Further, it would not permit individuals to seek adjustment of status through family petitions.  

At our organization, we have consulted and worked with numerous asylum seekers who not  only have valid asylum claims but are also eligible for adjustment of status through family  members already in the United States. Our organization is currently in the process of helping an  Imam from Uganda seek asylum due to the persecution he faced by his country’s government in  illegal and politically motivated effort to seize his land. This client, however, has been married to  a United States citizen for several years now and is also simultaneously seeking relief in the form  of an adjustment application filed on his behalf by his USC wife before the USCIS, an agency  independent of the EOIR. To limit those seeking immigration relief to solely asylum will not  only affect our clients but will also over burden the Immigration courts and further aggravate the  backlog of cases before the court.  

Conclusion 

These proposed rules represent a radical rewriting of the U.S. asylum system. They would  entirely undermine our asylum system and lead to the rejection of thousands of legitimate and  eligible asylum seekers who would be returned to persecution and harm. This would be a  violation of our country’s obligations under international law, the intent of our domestic asylum  laws enacted by Congress, and years of precedent created by the administrative immigration  courts and the federal circuit courts. As an organization dedicated to the dignity and legal  protection of African and Afro-Caribbean ex-pats, we are strongly opposed to these regulations  as they would negatively impact our community and turn away thousands of asylum seekers that  are fleeing persecution. Our community is a pillar of strength in the United States and those that  have previously been granted asylum have continued to contribute in a positive way to the  United States. To shut the doors to future asylum seekers will go down in history as a great  maleficence committed by our government. We call upon the administration to withdraw these  proposed rules in their entirety.  

Adoubou Traore 

Executive Director 

African Advocacy Network 

3106 Folsom St  

San Francisco, CA 94110 

(415) 503-1032