User:Clariceycha03/Asylum in the United States

Legend

Bold - Clarice's edits

Plain - Article's original prose

Italics: my copy edits

Obstacles faced by asylum seekers

Backlogs

There are 600 immigration judges. The immigration courts had a backlog of 394,000 asylum cases in January 2021, and 470,000 in March 2022, although another source says the backlog in November 2021 was 672,000, with an average wait of 1,942 days (5 1/3 years). The overall immigration court backlog was 1.9 million in August 2022, with an average wait of 798 days (2.2 years).

At the US Customs and Immigration Service, the backlog was 3 million immigration applications pending in 2013, rising to 5.7 million in September 2019 and 9.5 million in February 2022.

LGBTQ asylum seekers

Historically, homosexuality was considered a deviant behavior in the US; as such, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 barred homosexual individuals from entering the United States due to concerns about their psychological health. One of the first successful LGBT asylum pleas to be granted refugee status in the United States due to sexual orientation was a Cuban national whose case was first presented in 1989. The case was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals and the barring of LGBT individuals into the United States was repealed in 1990. The case, known as Matter of Acosta (1985), set the standard of what qualified as a "particular social group." This new definition of "social group" expanded to explicitly include homosexuality and the LGBT population. It considers homosexuality and gender identity a "common characteristic of the group either cannot change or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences." The definition was intended to be open-ended in order to fit with the changing understanding of sexuality. This allows political asylum to some LGBT individuals who face potential criminal penalties due to homosexuality and sodomy being illegal in the home country who are unable to seek protection from the state.

Susan Berger argues that while homosexuality and other sexual minorities might be protected under the law, the burden of proving that they are an LGBT member demonstrates a greater immutable view of the expected LGBT performance. The importance of visibility is stressed throughout the asylum process, as sexuality is an internal characteristic. It is not visibly represented in the outside appearance. According to Amanda M. Gómez, sexual orientation identity is formed and performed in the asylum process. Unlike race or gender, in sexual orientation asylum claims, applicants have to prove their sexuality to convince asylum officials that they are truly part of their social group. Rachel Lewis and Nancy Naples argue that LGBT people may not seem credible if they do not fit Western stereotypes of what LGBT people look like. Dress, mannerisms, and style of speech, as well as not having had public romantic relationships with the opposite sex, may be perceived by the immigration judge as not reflective of the applicants’ sexual orientation. Scholars and legal experts have long argued that asylum law has created legal definitions for homosexuality that limit our understanding of queerness.

Human Rights and LGBT advocates have worked to create many improvements to the LGBT Asylum Seekers coming into the United States and to give asylum seekers a chance to start a new life. A 2015 report issued by the LGBT Freedom and Asylum network identifies best practices for supporting LGBT asylum seekers in the US. The US State Department has also issued a factsheet on protecting LGBT refugees.

Gender

Female asylum seekers may encounter issues when seeking asylum in the United States due to what some see as a structural preference for male narrative forms in the requirements for acceptance. Researchers, such as Amy Shuman and Carol Bohmer, argue that the asylum process produces gendered cultural silences, particular in hearings where the majority of narrative construction takes place. Cultural silences refers to things that women refrain from sharing, due to shame, humiliation, and other deterrents. These deterrents can make achieving asylum more difficult as it can keep relevant information from being shared with the asylum judge.

These experiences are articulated during the hearing process where the responsibility to prove membership is on the applicant. During the hearing process, applicants are encouraged to demonstrate persecution for gender or sexuality and place the source as their own culture. Shuman and Bohmer argue that in sexual minorities, it is not enough to demonstrate only violence, asylum applicants have to align themselves against a restrictive culture. The narratives are forced to fit into categories shaped by western culture or else they are found to be fraudulent.

Susan Berger argues that the relationship between gender and sexuality leads to arbitrary case decisions, as there are no clear guidelines for when the private problems becomes an international problem. According to Shuman and Bohmer, due to women's social position in most countries, lesbians are more likely to stay in the closet, which often means that they do not have the public visibility element that the asylum process requires for credibility. This leads to Lewis and Naples’ critique to the fact that asylum officials often assume that since women do not live such public lives as men do, that they would be safe from abuse or persecution, in comparison to gay men who are often part of the public sphere. This argument violates the concept that one's sexual orientation is a fundamental right and that family and the private sphere are often the first spaces where lesbians experience violence and discrimination. Because lesbians live such hidden lives, they tend to lack police reports, hospital records, and letters of support from witnesses, which decreases their chances of being considered credible and raises the stakes of effectively telling their stories in front of asylum officials.

Transgender individuals have a higher risk for mental health problems when compared to cisgender counterparts. Many transgender individuals face socioeconomic difficulties in addition to being an asylum seeker. In a study conducted by Mary Gowin et al. of Mexican Transgender Asylum Seekers, they found 5 major stressors among the participants including assault (verbal, physical and sexual), "unstable environments, fear for safety and security, hiding undocumented status, and economic insecurity." They also found that all of the asylum seekers who participated reported at least one health issue that could be attributed to the stressors. Participants accessed little or no use of health or social services, attributed to barriers to access, such as fear of the government, language barriers and transportation. They are also more likely to report lower levels of education due to few opportunities after entering the United States. Many of the asylum seeker participants entered the United States as undocumented immigrants. Obstacles to legal services included fear and knowledge that there were legal resources to gaining asylum.

Gang violence

In 2018, Attorney General Sessions issued a decision in Matter of A-B- that precluded people fleeing gang violence from qualifying for asylum protections based on that alone. In 2021, Attorney General Garland vacated Matter of A-B-, which allows the possibility of asylum seekers to prevail on such claims. Indiscriminate gang violence does not fit under the claim of persecution based on social group. The rationale is that gangs do not target people based on their social group but rather anyone in their territory. Many people in the Northern Triangle of Central America flee their homes in search of safety from members of gangs.

Climate change

Climate change and natural disasters have caused 265 million people to migrate since 2008. People who have been forced out of their homes and ways of life due to climate change are not recognized and protected under United States asylum policy because they do not fit under one of the protected categories of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group. There are not any protections for environmental refugees on the national, or even international, level. While their homes and villages may be destroyed due to earthquakes, hurricanes, rising sea water etc., the U.S. does not provide them protection. An October 2021 report from The White House titled "The Report on the Impact of Climate Change on Migration" stresses the need and development for further humanitarian assistance in disasters of climate change.

Technology

The integration of digital tools and artificial intelligence in the U.S. asylum process has the potential to improve efficiency and accessibility for asylum seekers, but it also exacerbates existing inequalities, raises significant privacy concerns, and risks perpetuating biases in decision-making. While technological advancements, such as mobile applications, online case management systems, and AI-driven analytics, offer new pathways to streamline asylum procedures, the benefits are not equitably distributed due to digital inequality and systemic challenges. For technology to positively impact the asylum process, policymakers must address these disparities, implement rigorous privacy safeguards, and ensure transparency in AI applications to uphold the rights and dignity of asylum seekers.

1. Efficiency and accessibility

Digital tools like websites and mobile applications can be a promising way to provide information about public benefits to asylum seekers. For example, the CBP One mobile application, used by the U.S. government, allows asylum seekers to schedule appointments to present themselves at a port of entry to the U.S. The application requires asylum seekers to submit personal data, including a facial photograph for facial recognition.

These tools can also facilitate remote registration and interview processes, potentially reducing geographical barriers and wait times. Mobile applications, in particular, can offer asylum seekers a direct channel to schedule appointments with immigration officials and access relevant information about their cases. Additionally, these tools can provide language support, connect asylum seekers with legal resources, and disseminate essential information regarding their rights and procedures.

However, many asylum seekers lack access to reliable internet connections, digital devices, and the necessary digital literacy skills. This disparity creates a barrier for those already marginalized and highlights the need for policymakers to prioritize initiatives that provide equitable access to technology, digital literacy training, and language support.

2. Data privacy

A key concern with the use of technology in the asylum process is the potential for data privacy violations. The collection, storage, and use of personal information, including biometrics, raise significant concerns about surveillance, profiling, and the potential misuse of sensitive data. This is especially concerning in the context of heightened immigration enforcement. Asylum seekers, already fearful of persecution, may be hesitant to share personal information through digital platforms, further hindering their access to essential resources. One study found that this hesitancy is justified due to the precarity inherent in the immigration system, especially for vulnerable immigrant groups, such as undocumented immigrants. One healthcare professional explained, "If I am undocumented, I’m not going to go to a website and click on a search option that says 'I’m undocumented,' right, because I’d be terrified of who’s taking that information, where’s it going".

It is imperative to implement robust privacy safeguards and data protection measures that prioritize the security and confidentiality of asylum seekers' information. One potential solution is to allow asylum seekers to own electronic files in which they could capture details of their journey and upload evidence supporting their story, giving them control over what data they share.

3. A human-centered approach

The integration of technology in the asylum process must prioritize upholding the rights and dignity of asylum seekers. Policymakers must proceed with caution, ensuring that technological advancements do not come at the expense of fairness, due process, and the fundamental right to seek asylum. To achieve a just and equitable asylum system, the focus must shift from solely pursuing efficiency to prioritizing human-centered design principles that center the needs and experiences of asylum seekers.

This involves:

• Conducting thorough human rights impact assessments before implementing new technologies.
• Ensuring access to legal counsel and human review of all AI-driven decisions.
• Promoting transparency and accountability in the development and application of algorithms.
• Investing in digital literacy training and language support for asylum seekers.
• Centering the voices and experiences of asylum seekers in the design and implementation of technology.

Only by addressing the ethical considerations and potential harms of technology can its integration truly enhance the asylum process and contribute to a fairer and more humane system for those seeking protection.