ASYLUM REFORM PROPOSALS
Allowing Asylum Officers to Decide
Some have proposed allowing asylum officers to conduct the full asylum process, not just determining credible fear for border arrivals. The current process sends all cases in which the asylum officer determines there is credible fear to the immigration court for a hearing. This proposal would have asylum officers decide whether someone qualifies for asylum, rather than referring them to immigration courts. Under this proposal, there would be no appeal to immigration courts if the asylum officer denies the case, although appeals to an asylum officer supervisor would be available.
The Case ForÂ
Supporters argue that asylum officers are fully capable of deciding asylum cases. In fact, some advocates argue that asylum officers are better suited than immigration judges to make the final determination. They note that asylum officers, unlike immigration judges, are specifically trained in the requirements for asylum and in how to elicit testimony from those who may have suffered trauma, as those who have suffered persecution frequently have. They further argue that the non-adversarial setting of an asylum interview is a more comfortable way for immigrants to tell their stories.
Supporters argue that having asylum officers make the final decision at the border would also speed up and streamline the process. They observe that 65% of the backlog of 3.7 million cases pending before immigration courts are asylum cases (2.4 million). Proponents argue that the faster process would allow valid cases to be approved sooner, preventing individuals from lingering in detention or legal limbo while also denying invalid cases and allowing for deportation more quickly.
The Case Against
Opponents of asylum officers making final decisions on asylum claims at the border argue that the immigration court process is more rigorous. They suggest that the best decision is made when both the arguments for and against the claim are fully developed, which happens in immigration court.
On one side, immigrants are given greater procedural protections to make their case for asylum. They are given more time to gather and present evidence. Opponents of letting asylum officers decide argue that immigration courts are better positioned to recognize valid claims, especially given immigrants’ far greater opportunity to obtain legal representation.
On the other side, the government presents evidence and arguments against asylum, unlike in the asylum interview conducted by an asylum officer. Opponents of letting asylum officers decide argue that immigration courts can more effectively detect fraudulent or unverified claims.