|
Refugees Behind Bars: The Imprisonment of Asylum Seekers in the Wake of the 1996 Immigration Act
(August 1999) 37pp $6
Order this publication
Executive Summary and Recommendations
-
The impact of U.S. Detention and Parole Practices on Asylum Seekers
- U.S. and International Law and Guidelines
- The INS's Long-standing Failure to Implement Parole for Asylum Seekers
- Current Detention Practices Are Unduly Costly and Offend American Traditions of Justice
- Conclusion
Endnotes
Questions?
If you have any questions about ordering publications, please email pubs@lchr.org
If you have technical problems with the site please email webmaster@lchr.org
For any other questions relating to LCHR publications or permission to reprint please email pubs_info@lchr.org
|
 |
|
|
Refugees Behind Bars
The Imprisonment of Asylum Seekers in The Wake of The 1996 Immigration Act
"My heart saddens every day I wake up in the morning still at this facility thinking about my past, my future which is uncertain...Being a refugee in America has become a crime, we are handcuffed, shacked and treated like criminals. We are kept in prison-like detention center. When a refugee spends more than a month in incarceration, it's no longer detention, it's imprisonment.
America is known around the world as defender of Liberty and a haven for the oppressed. She should not pull the drawbridge and turn deaf ear to those who flee injustices and persecution. Its citizens should not close their eyes to the suffering of asylum seekers... [T]hey should be guided by generosity and remain true to Emma Lazarus’s time-worn inscription on the Statue of Liberty, which stands as a welcome to all those who arrived at this country’s shore."
From a letter, dated July 20, 1999, from Olufemi Abdulai, a Nigerian asylum seeker represented pro bono by attorney at the law firm of Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione through the Lawyers Committee Asylum Program. Mr. Abdulai has been held at the Elizabeth, New Jersey detention facility since March 22, 1998.
Executive Summary and
Recommendations
The
United States has long viewed itself as the land of the free and the
protector of the persecuted, in the words of Emma Lazarus, the
"Mother of Exiles." In fact, U.S. concern for the plight of refugees
during the Second World War was instrumental in the development of
the modern international refugee protection system. Sadly however,
"world-wide welcome" no longer glows from the Statue of Liberty’s
torch upon the exiles who flee to our shores "yearning to breathe
free." Instead, handcuffs, shackles, and imprisonment too often
await those who arrive seeking protection from persecution. The
imprisonment of arriving asylum seekers, a practice that expanded
dramatically in the 1980s, was reinforced by the restrictive
provisions of the 1996 immigration law. The "expedited removal"
provisions of that law, which went into effect in April 1997, have
resulted in lengthy detentions of asylum seekers who flee to the
U.S. without valid travel documents.
As a
result, those who arrive in this country seeking freedom and
protection are routinely imprisoned for months, and sometimes for
years, while their asylum cases are pending. Even when the
Immigration and Naturalization Service’s own guidelines call for an
asylum seeker to be released, local officials often refuse,
detaining them at substantial expense to U.S. taxpayers rather than
releasing them to the care of legal U.S. family members or friends
who are willing to bear the burden of housing and supporting them.
In
this report, we document these failures of U.S. law, policy, and
practice. We also profile the stories of some individual asylum
seekers. These asylum seekers are rape survivors, torture survivors,
pro-democracy activists, and victims of religious or ethnically
based persecution. They are refugees who fled to our shores
"yearning to breathe free" and are entitled to protection under U.S.
and international law. They have been jailed in the United States
for months or longer, despite the fact that their U.S. citizen or
legal resident family members or friends were willing to house and
support them.
The
current system of detaining asylum seekers, a system which provides
no meaningful access to parole for so many, flies in the face of
U.S. obligations under international refugee protection treaties,
obligations that stem from the lessons of World War II. The system
is inconsistent with American traditions of justice and is inhumane.
The impact on individual refugees, including those whose stories are
profiled in this report, cannot be underestimated. It should come as
no surprise that desperate asylum seekers launched hunger-strikes at
the Queens, NY and Elizabeth, NJ detention facilities last fall and
again in Queens last month, protesting, among other concerns, the
length of detention and the lack of meaningful parole practices. The
financial cost of detaining asylum seekers and other immigration
detainees is substantial—by the year 2001, it will exceed $550
million annually. There is no excuse then for the needless detention
of asylum seekers with credible claims who pose no risk of harm to
the community. The system is deeply flawed and must be
fixed.
Recommendations:
- Congress should clarify that the policy of the
United States generally is not to
detain asylum seekers who pose no risk to the community, and in
particular not to detain asylum seekers who have met the "credible
fear" standard by establishing a significant possibility of
winning asylum. Any exceptions to this general rule should be
narrowly tailored. These changes would ensure that U.S. law is
consistent with American tradition and international
standards.
- Congress should direct the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to issue regulations providing for the
release of asylum seekers who meet the "credible fear" standard
and pose no danger to the community. The INS should not be
permitted to issue only guidelines—rather than regulations—on
parole of asylum seekers, as this practice has repeatedly proven
insufficient to ensure accountability and compliance by local INS
districts.
- Individual detention and parole decisions
should no longer be made by local INS district detention and
deportation officials. Initial INS detention and parole decisions
for asylum seekers should be made by officers who are specially
trained in asylum, country condition, and parole issues, such as
asylum officers. These decisions should be made pursuant to
legally binding regulations, rather than at the discretion of
local officials.
- Decisions to detain asylum seekers must be
automatically and promptly referred for review to a judicial or
other competent and independent authority. A meaningful,
independent, and timely appeal process must be established to
review parole denials. Decisions to detain should be reviewed
periodically by this independent authority.
- In
those limited cases in which some form of detention is deemed
necessary and where there is no risk of harm to the community, the
INS should make maximum use of alternatives to detention. Such
alternatives might include use of refugee accommodation centers,
group homes, supervised release programs, release to a guarantor,
or release on bond. The INS should continue to explore the use of
programs such as the Vera Institute of Justice Appearance
Assistance Program.
- Asylum seekers should not be held in local or
state jails or prisons and should not be held with criminal
populations.
- Congress and the INS Commissioner should
ensure that any INS restructuring makes provision for the unique
situation of detained asylum seekers. In particular, if the
functions of the INS are divided into separate "service" and
"enforcement" divisions or bureaus, determinations regarding the
care and release of detained asylum seekers should not be
entrusted to the enforcement division. Adequate resources must be
allocated to the parole determination process.
- In
developing release procedures and programs, the INS should work
cooperatively with non-profit organizations that have years of
experience in assisting asylum seekers with their legal,
religious, social, and resettlement needs.
- The
INS must be required to maintain and publicly release accurate and
current statistics regarding the number of asylum seekers in
detention, the length of detention of asylum seekers, and the
release and/or parole of asylum seekers.
I. THE IMPACT OF U.S.
DETENTION AND PAROLE PRACTICES ON ASYLUM SEEKERS
As detailed more fully below, asylum seekers who
arrive in this country without proper documents are subject to the 1996
immigration law’s expedited removal procedures. Many asylum seekers—from the
Jews who were forced to flee Nazi Germany using false travel documents to ethnic
Albanians from Kosovo who have been stripped of their identity papers by their
persecutors—may have no choice but to flee to safety without valid travel
documents.(2) Under the expedited removal procedures, those asylum seekers who
are not summarily turned away at the airport or entry-point are subject to
"mandatory detention." They are held in detention facilities and jails. They are
not eligible for release or permitted to apply for asylum until they are
determined by an INS asylum officer or an immigration judge to have a "credible
fear of persecution," which is defined as "a significant possibility, taking
into account the credibility of the statements made by the alien…, that the
alien could establish eligibility for asylum…."(3) Those who meet the "credible
fear" standard are eligible for parole under U.S. law and the INS’s own parole
guidelines for asylum seekers, which provide for the parole of asylum seekers
who meet certain criteria and have family, friends, or other community ties in
the U.S.(4) Yet, as described in this report, the
majority of these asylum seekers remain detained, often for months
or longer, in U.S. prisons, jails, and detention facilities.
A. Individual Case Profiles: INS
Failure to Parole Asylum Seekers
Profiled below are the stories of individual asylum
seekers who were detained for months or longer in U.S. detention facilities and
prisons, despite the fact that they had genuine asylum claims and family or
friends willing to house and support them. These asylum seekers were sent to
detention facilities or prisons upon their arrival without proper travel
documents after they indicated that they were afraid to return home. They were
fingerprinted, handcuffed or shackled in most cases, and transported to a
facility or prison. Their clothes and belongings were taken from them and they
were given a facility uniform to wear. They were interviewed by the INS, under
the 1996 immigration law’s expedited removal procedures, and were determined to
meet the "credible fear" standard by establishing a significant possibility of
winning asylum. As a result, they were eligible to be assessed for parole under
the law and the INS’s own guidelines regarding the parole of asylum seekers.
However, they were denied parole, despite the fact that they had U.S. citizen or
other legal family members who were willing to house and support them. Instead,
they were held for months in prison-like conditions while their asylum claims
were pending. One Somali asylum-seeker, who arrived prior to the new law, was
detained for nearly four years.
Unfortunately, as discussed later in this report(5),
these stories are not unique. Sadly, many asylum seekers spend long periods of
time in detention as they pursue their appeals. In the last year, for instance,
following successful appeals, an Algerian client of the Lawyers Committee was
granted asylum and released from prison after three and one-half years in
detention and another Algerian client was granted asylum and released after one
year and four months in detention. A Sri Lankan teacher, Sittampalam
Sundralingham, spent three and one-half years in six different detention
centers and jails, until the federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
finally granted his asylum claim last year.(6) The stories profiled below are
simply illustrative examples of cases handled by Lawyers Committee volunteers
and other attorneys. As the Lawyers Committee operates its pro bono
representation program in New York and New Jersey—the sites of two
of the primary detention centers for arriving asylum seekers—many of
the profiled cases are from these areas. While the release policies
in these areas are particularly restrictive, as discussed below, the
failure to release parole-eligible asylum seekers is a national
problem. The injustice and utter waste inherent in the current
system is underscored by the fact that each of the profiled asylum
seekers was ultimately granted asylum.
- "Mr. A."(7) Mr. A, an asylum seeker from
Somalia, was detained for nearly four years, and was finally released when the Board of Immigration
Appeals granted his asylum claim in December 1998. Mr. A’s father,
mother, brothers, and one sister were killed in Somalia when the
militia of a rival clan attacked the family’s home. During the
attack, militia members beat Mr. A and raped his sister. Mr. A
fled from Somalia and made his way to the United States, arriving
at JFK Airport in December 1994 without valid travel documents. He
was detained in six different detention facilities and prisons in
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, including the former
Wackenhut facility in Queens, the former Esmor detention facility
in Elizabeth, New Jersey, Sneider County Prison, Lehigh County
Prison, Berks County Prison, and Carbon County Medium Security
Prison. Shortly after his arrival, Mr. A requested release
pursuant to the INS’s own parole guidelines for asylum seekers.
Mr. A had U.S. citizen relatives living in the Washington, DC area
who were willing to house and support him. His parole request was
denied. Subsequent parole requests were denied or ignored. Mr. A
was finally released from prison in December 1998 after the Board
of Immigration Appeals granted his asylum case. Mr. A was
imprisoned in this country for nearly four years—at unimaginable
expense to U.S. taxpayers—when he could have, and should have,
been released to the care of his U.S. citizen family members.
- "Mina."(8) Mina was a medical
student in Afghanistan before she was forced to leave school because of Taliban
government decrees that barred women from such schools. In 1998, she was
targeted by the Taliban regime because her sisters are Christians and because
she opened a school to teach young girls—a violation of Taliban prohibitions
against the education of women. Last year, the Taliban raided the girls school
and ordered it closed, beating Mina and threatening her with death. They also
said that they knew she was Christian and threatened to punish her as a lesson
to others. Mina fled Afghanistan without her identity documents, knowing that
they would place her life in greater danger should she be stopped by the
Taliban. She arrived at JFK airport in October 1998. There, the INS shackled
Mina to a bench; she soon fainted and was taken to the hospital. She was later
taken to the INS detention facility in Queens, NY, which is operated by the
Wackenhut Corrections Corporation. An INS asylum officer determined that Mina
had a significant possibility of winning asylum. Mina’s pro bono
attorneys asked that she be paroled to the care of her sister, who is a U.S.
citizen and her brother-in-law, who is also a U.S. citizen and an employee of
the U.S. government. The INS refused to parole her. An INS officer told Mina’s
pro bono lawyers that the New York INS is not obligated to follow
the parole guidelines for asylum seekers that had been issued by
INS headquarters. As a result, Mina was detained for more than
three months in prison-like conditions at the expense of U.S.
taxpayers, instead of being released to the care of her U.S.
citizen sister and brother-in-law. The Lawyers Committee, in a
letter to INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, cited this parole
denial as yet another example of the INS’s failure to properly
administer parole for asylum seekers. Mina was subsequently
released, but only two weeks before her asylum hearing. At the
hearing, she was granted asylum by the immigration judge.
- Adebayo Ladipo.(9) Mr. Ladipo is a
pro-democracy activist from Nigeria. He was repeatedly arrested and severely
beaten by Nigeria’s military government because of his pro-democracy activities,
including his organization of and participation in rallies protesting abuses
such as the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa, the assassination of the wife of Chief
Moshood K.O. Abiola, and the death while in prison of Chief Abiola. After the
military government detained Mr. Ladipo again and killed his brother, Mr. Ladipo
escaped and fled from Nigeria. Unable to obtain travel documents from the
government that was persecuting him, Mr. Ladipo fled to the U.S. without proper
documents. Upon his arrival at Newark International Airport in July 1998, he
requested asylum. He was brought in handcuffs to the INS detention facility in
Elizabeth, NJ, which is operated by Correction Corporation of America (CCA). An
INS asylum officer determined that Mr. Ladipo had a significant possibility of
winning asylum. Mr. Ladipo’s pro bono attorneys
requested that Mr. Ladipo be paroled to the care of his family and
friends. Mr. Ladipo has six cousins in the U.S.—one was a U.S.
citizen and the others were legal residents. His parole request
was supported by a U.S. citizen family member who lives in New
York City and a U.S. citizen family friend who is an engineer
working for the City of New York. The INS refused to parole Mr.
Ladipo. Mr. Ladipo was granted asylum by an immigration judge, and
was released after spending more than three months in
detention.
- Karantha S. and her children.(10) Karantha
and her family feared persecution in Sri Lanka from both the Sri Lankan
government and the Tamil guerillas. Her fourteen-year-old daughter was kidnapped
by the Tamil guerillas, and Karantha herself was later abducted and forced to
serve the Tamil guerillas by caring for their wounded. Karantha and her daughter
were both able to escape but the family feared further persecution by the
guerillas as well as persecution from the government, which mistakenly suspected
them of supporting the guerilla group. Karantha’s daughter fled to Canada.
Karantha herself fled next, taking with her two of her other children, one who
was nine years old and another who was sixteen years old. They planned to flee
to Canada where they had family, and seek asylum there. The family arrived in
the United States at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport in May 1998,
on their way to Canada. The INS detained the family because they did not have
valid travel documents. Karantha was subsequently interviewed by an INS asylum
officer who determined that she had a significant possibility of winning asylum.
Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, which represented Karantha and her
children pro bono, requested that they be paroled.
The INS refused. Instead Karantha was separated from her children
and detained by the INS in a jail in Rice County, Minnesota. Her
children were detained in a juvenile detention facility in
Chicago, Illinois. Karantha suffered extreme emotional distress
from being separated from her children. She lost weight and
couldn’t sleep. The children also suffered; they were very
frightened and cried continuously for their mother. The family
spent approximately three months in this deplorable situation.
They were not released until they were granted asylum in August
1998.
- Alex Ilunga Mulamba.(11) Mr. Mulamba is a
pro-democracy activist from the Democratic Republic of Congo (the former Zaire).
He was arrested, beaten, and detained by both the Mobutu and Kabila regimes
because of his peaceful pro-democracy political activities. In a 1998 crackdown
on opposition political activists, soldiers raided Mr. Mulamba’s house. Not
finding him, they abducted his wife. With the assistance of a Catholic priest,
Mr. Mulamba fled from the Democratic Republic of Congo to the United States. He
was detained upon his arrival in May 1998 and taken in handcuffs and leg
shackles to the Wackenhut detention facility in Queens, New York. An INS asylum
officer determined that Mr. Mulamba had a significant possibility of winning
asylum. Mr. Mulamba’s pro bono attorneys
applied for parole. The application was supported by the affidavit
of Mr. Mulamba’s aunt, who had previously won asylum here. New
York INS, which acknowledged receiving the parole request, never
even responded to it, even though the attorneys made nearly a
dozen phone calls to INS officers requesting a response. Mr.
Mulamba was detained for three and one-half months, and was only
released after he was granted asylum by an immigration judge.
- "Fatima Kwakuud."(12) Fatima, a mother of
seven children, fled Somalia for fear of being further persecuted because she is
a member of a minority clan. Many of her family members had been raped or
killed. She herself had been brutally raped in the presence of her young
children. Fatima fled to the United States to seek asylum, and like many
refugees, she had no choice but to travel using false travel documents.(13)
Fatima was brought to the Wackenhut detention facility in Queens, New York after
her arrival. An INS asylum officer determined that she had a significant
possibility of winning asylum. Fatima had family members who are legal U.S.
residents and who were willing to house and support her—one of whom was employed
by the United States government. Her pro bono attorneys
applied for parole, requesting that she be released to the care of
her family. The INS denied her parole request. An INS officer told
her attorneys that the only individuals who would be released from
Wackenhut were those who were "near death" or government
witnesses. After several long and unnecessary months in detention,
Fatima was granted asylum by an immigration judge.
- "Dr. Z."(14) Dr. Z ran a clinic in
Afghanistan. The ruling Taliban imprisoned and tortured him after
he assisted a pregnant woman in the delivery of her child—a
violation of the Taliban’s codes that prohibit male doctors from
touching women. After his escape, Dr. Z fled to the U.S. and, as
he would not have been able to secure a passport from the very
regime that had persecuted him, he arrived without valid travel
documents. He arrived at JFK airport in November 1997 and was
taken in handcuffs to the Wackenhut detention facility in Queens,
New York. An INS asylum officer determined that Dr. Z had a
significant possibility of winning asylum. Dr. Z’s cousin, a U.S.
citizen, was willing to house and support him. His parole
application was also supported by an affidavit from the Associate
Medical Director of the NYU/Bellevue Program for Survivors of
Torture and a letter from the President of Physicians for Human
Rights. However, the New York INS denied Dr. Z’s parole request,
explaining the decision as based on "congressional intent" which
the local INS said calls for parole to be "narrowly exercised."
After repeated inquiries by the Lawyers Committee and by
Congressional staff, the INS reversed its decision, releasing Dr.
Z after two and one-half months in detention. An immigration judge
later granted his asylum request.
- "Kassim."(15) Kassim fled from Somalia
after being persecuted because of his clan affiliation. Kassim was
detained and tortured in Somalia, and his wife was brutally
attacked and raped. In the spring of 1998, Kassim arrived at the
airport in Detroit, Michigan without proper travel documents and
requested asylum. Kassim’s mother and his brothers and sisters
lived legally in the United States, having been brought to this
country through U.S. refugee resettlement programs. Kassim was
brought to a Detroit-area jail, and later transported to the INS
detention facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. An INS asylum officer
determined that Kassim had a significant possibility of winning
asylum. Kassim applied for parole. His parole application
emphasized the fact that he had a U.S. citizen brother who was
willing to support him and 12 immediate family members who had
been granted refugee or asylum status by the United States—a
strong indication that Kassim too would be granted asylum by the
United States. The INS refused to parole Kassim. In the end,
Kassim was needlessly detained for about four months, and not
surprisingly, the immigration judge granted his asylum
request.
- "Mr. N."(16) Mr. N is a student from a
prominent Sudanese pro-democracy family. Members of Mr. N’s family are active
pro-democracy and human rights advocates who have been repeatedly and brutally
persecuted by the Islamist government that rules Sudan. Several family members
live in exile and have been granted asylum in Europe. Mr. N was taken into
custody in Sudan last year after he distributed leaflets expressing opposition
to the policies of the Sudanese government. Fearing further persecution, he
subsequently fled to the United States on a visa that was found to be no longer
valid. Upon arriving in the United States in April 1998, he requested asylum and
was taken to the Wackenhut detention facility in Queens, New York. Family
friends contacted the Lawyers Committee, which recruited pro bono attorneys to
represent him. An INS asylum officer determined that Mr. N had a
significant possibility of winning asylum. Mr. N’s lawyers applied
for parole. Family friends, including a former U.S. government
official who knew Mr. N’s family, supported his parole
application. But the INS denied his parole request. Mr. N was
detained for four months, and was only released after he was
granted asylum by an immigration judge.
In addition, the INS has also refused to release
individuals who have been granted "withholding of removal" by U.S. immigration
judges, even though these individuals have been determined to meet the
definition of a "refugee" under U.S. law and have actually had to meet a
higher standard than the asylum standard. Withholding of removal
corresponds to the United States’ obligation of non-refoulement under the
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967
Protocol.(17) Two examples are profiled below.
- Dominic Nunu.(18) Mr. Nunu initially fled
from Liberia after forces under the command of Charles Taylor
killed his parents and sisters because of the family’s ethnic
background and because Mr. Nunu’s father was a prominent member of
the former government. A Catholic Church in Cote d’Ivoire assisted
Mr. Nunu and other Liberian refugees for several years until the
Church ran out of funding. When Mr. Nunu returned to Liberia in
1997, he learned his home country was still very dangerous for
him. He was beaten unconscious by a military officer working for
Charles Taylor, Liberia’s new ruler. Mr. Nunu fled Liberia and
after stowing away on a ship, he arrived in the United States in
September 1997 seeking asylum. He was brought to the Wackenhut
detention facility in Queens, New York. An INS officer determined
that Mr. Nunu had a significant possibility of winning asylum. Mr.
Nunu was not released from detention. At his subsequent asylum
hearing, the immigration judge determined that Mr. Nunu was
precluded from receiving asylum because he had spent several years
in Cote D’Ivoire. However, the judge found Mr. Nunu to be credible
and to meet the higher standard for "withholding of removal." Mr.
Nunu’s lawyers filed a parole request on Mr. Nunu’s behalf. The
Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City supported his parole
request and agreed to provide housing and financial support to Mr.
Nunu. The INS refused to parole Mr. Nunu even though he had been
granted withholding of removal. They then continued to detain him,
despite a redesignation of "temporary protected status" for
Liberian nationals(19) and Mr. Nunu’s diagnosis with myasthenia
gravis, a serious neuromuscular disease. In December 1998, a
neurologist who treated Mr. Nunu when he was brought to the
hospital recommended that Mr. Nunu be released from detention
immediately so that he could seek medical treatment. But the INS
still rejected Mr. Nunu’s request for medical parole. After
inquiries from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s office,
Congressman Jerrold Nadler’s office, a reporter and John Cardinal
O’Connor, the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New
York, Mr. Nunu was finally released in May 1999. He had been
detained for one year and eight months.
- Mr. Osadeba Omo Eboigbe.(20) Mr.
Eboigbe fled from Nigeria last year after he was savagely beaten and shot at by
Nigerian soldiers. His younger brother was killed before his eyes. Nigeria’s
military government targeted him because he had organized a youth group to
express opposition to the government’s policy of confiscating private land for
oil companies. Mr. Eboigbe arrived at JFK International Airport in September
1998. He was detained and brought to the Wackenhut detention facility in Queens,
New York. An INS asylum officer determined that Mr. Eboigbe had a significant
possibility of winning asylum. His pro bono attorneys filed a request for
parole; but the INS did not respond for more than two months. At
the asylum hearing, the immigration judge found that Mr. Eboigbe
met the definition of "refugee" and the high standard for
withholding of removal; but the judge declined, without providing
an explanation, to exercise his discretion by granting asylum. The
decision was appealed. In the meantime however, the INS refused to
release Mr. Eboigbe despite the fact that he was eligible for
release. In refusing to parole Mr. Eboigbe, the New York INS, as
in other parole denials, implied that Congressional intent somehow
weighed against release stating that "[i]t is Service policy that
[parole] authority is carefully and narrowly exercised to be in
conformity with statutory purpose and legislative intent." In
responding to Mr. Eboigbe’s request that he be released in the
interests of justice, the INS called the Wackenhut detention
facility "a safe haven" for asylum seekers. Mr. Eboigbe was
finally released after about nine months in detention when the
Board of Immigration Appeals granted him asylum in June 1999.
B. The Inhumane Conditions of
Detention
The
inhumane conditions in which asylum seekers and other INS detainees
are detained have been well documented over the years. The Minnesota
Lawyers for International Human Rights and Physicians for Human
Rights documented abuses at the Krome detention facility in Miami in
1991. The American Civil Liberties Union, in a 1994 report,
documented extensive deficiencies in conditions at the INS-run
Varick Street detention facility in New York. The Women’s Commission
for Refugee Women and Children detailed harsh conditions existing in
the New Orleans Parish Prison in a 1995 report.(21)
Conditions became so deplorable at the INS-contract
detention facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey, that asylum seekers rioted in 1995
to protest abusive treatment and lengthy detention. Detainees at the facility,
which was then run by Esmor Inc., reported conditions including "abusive guards,
substandard food and . . . the shackling of detainees as they met their
lawyers."(22) A federal judge recently held that the allegations of abuse at the
Esmor facility, which included unsanitary conditions, racial insults, inadequate
medical care, and physical and sexual abuse, would, if proven, violate
international human rights law.(23) Concerns about the mistreatment
of asylum seekers were further highlighted by the well-known case of Fauziya
Kassindja, a nineteen-year-old Togolese refugee who fled from female genital
mutilation in Togo and was detained for over a year at the Esmor facility and
various prisons before she was finally granted asylum. Ms. Kassindja reported
serious incidents of abuse, including repeated strip searches, inappropriate use
of segregation, the use of tear gas, deficient medical care and other inhumane
and improper treatment.(24)
The 1995 riot and the Kassindja case focused
attention on the mistreatment of asylum seekers in INS custody. Unfortunately,
the situation has not improved. Human rights organizations continue to document
appalling treatment of detained asylum seekers. For example, in April 1997 the
Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children issued a report, entitled
Forgotten Prisoners, which highlighted concerns about the treatment of
women and children in detention.(25) Human Rights Watch’s September 1998 report,
entitled Locked Away: Immigration Detainees in Jails in the United
States, found that "INS detainees—including asylum seekers—are being held in
jails entirely inappropriate to their non-criminal status where they may be
mixed with accused and convicted criminal inmates, and where they are sometimes
subjected to physical mistreatment and grossly inadequate conditions of
confinement."(26) The October 1998 Amnesty International U.S. report included a
chapter entitled "Treated as Criminal: Asylum Seekers in the USA" which describes the inhumane and degrading treatment of
asylum seekers who are detained in the U.S.(27)
In
recent years, serious concerns have been raised about the treatment
of immigration detainees held at the Krome Service Processing Center
in Florida, including allegations of neglect, sexual misconduct,
beatings and the use of stun guns. In 1995, INS officials misled a
congressional delegation about conditions at the center.(28) While
many improvements have been made, including the appointment of a new
INS officer-in-charge at the center, attorneys continue to express
concern regarding the medical care received by detainees.(29) Last
year the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center reported that detainees
at the Jackson County Jail were shocked with stun guns, beaten,
cursed at with racial epithets, and put into solitary confinement
for requesting medical care or food.(30)
In
March 1998, four Union County jail guards in Elizabeth, New Jersey
were convicted and six others pled guilty to criminal charges of
abusing detainees. Prosecutors reported that the guards had forced
detainees to put their heads in the toilet, pulled their genitals
with pliers, and ordered them to engage in sexual
acts.(31)
Detainees in California, Louisiana, and New
Hampshire have held hunger-strikes to protest alleged
mistreatment.(32) Two riots occurred at the INS center in El Centro,
California in 1998, and a Los Angeles legal organization brought a
federal class action suit against the INS for not providing adequate
medical and legal services to detainees.(33) Detainees in county
jails in New England have complained about deficient food, lack of
medical care and recreation, and about being jailed with the general
criminal population.(34) Chicago-area jails for holding asylum
seekers and other immigration detainees have been reported to be
seriously deficient and to provide inadequate medical
care.(35)
The
Lawyers Committee’s experience in assisting and representing
detained asylum seekers has led us to have serious concerns about
the conditions in which asylum seekers are held. Our detained
clients are held primarily at the large Wackenhut detention facility
in Queens, New York and the CCA detention facility in Elizabeth, New
Jersey, but also at numerous county and local jails in Pennsylvania
and Virginia. Asylum seekers are often brought to these facilities
in handcuffs or leg restraints.(36) Upon arrival, they are stripped
of their possessions and dressed in prison attire. At the Elizabeth
facility, they will be shackled with leg weights during INS credible
fear interviews. One Lawyers Committee client was brought to his
asylum hearing and forced to testify before the immigration judge in
handcuffs and leg restraints.
In the
large detention facilities, asylum seekers are given a bed in a
large locked room (sometimes referred to as a "pod" or "dorm") where
they will be held with many other detainees for at least three or
four months, and perhaps for a year or more. Asylum seekers at these
facilities have reported that they are sometimes hungry and that
medical care is deficient. They have no meaningful access to the
outdoors, as the "outdoor" recreation area is no more than a
relatively small internal courtyard with a fence-like cover instead
of a roof. Some asylum seekers have reported that they have been
insulted or mistreated by facility officers. Some have reported that
they are placed in segregation unfairly, and others have complained
of the use of forced sedation and the use of excessive physical
force.
The
severity of these problems was further underscored by the
hunger-strikes that occurred last fall at both the Elizabeth and
Wackenhut detention facilities. Asylum seekers at the Elizabeth
detention facility complained about a wide range of problems,
including abusive behavior by officers employed by the contractor,
insufficient food, excessively high telephone card rates, and delays
in appeal processing. They specifically complained about lack of
parole and the length of detention.(37) Asylum seekers at the
facility also reported instances of mistreatment, including the use
of excessive force by officers employed by the contractor. In one
incident, an asylum seeker reported that he was physically taken
from his bed by several officers who twisted his arm forcefully and
handcuffed him, using such force that his shoulder was injured and
his head was slammed against the rim of the bed cutting his lip and
bloodying the sheets.(38)
During
the October hunger-strike at the Wackenhut facility in Queens, the
concerns of asylum seekers focused on the length of detention and
the New York INS’s restrictive parole policy.(39) During the
hunger-strike, frustrations escalated and several asylum seekers at
the Wackenhut facility attempted to kill themselves. An Iraqi asylum
seeker who had been placed in solitary confinement slashed his arm
with a razor blade and tried to hang himself. An asylum seeker from
Congo swallowed a mixture of painkillers and Ben Gay ointment. An
Albanian asylum seeker reportedly swallowed a bottle of
antibiotics.(40)
Earlier this year, reports of mistreatment and
excessive physical force escalated at the Elizabeth facility. The
INS referred allegations of excessive physical force, beatings,
verbal abuse, and a possible cover-up relating to withholding of
information and tampering with evidence to the FBI for
investigation. Since February, the contractor’s chief of security
was removed, and two supervisors and six officers were barred from
interaction with detainees. In addition, one officer was fired for
refusing to cooperate with an internal investigation and two
officers tested positively for drug use.(41) The allegations under
investigation included the report of a Nigerian asylum seeker,
Oluwole Aboyade, who asserted that after reporting insufficient
lighting in his dorm, he was placed in a segregation cell, punched
in the chest, pushed against a wall, and kicked in the leg. Mr.
Aboyade told a reporter that: "This is abuse I experienced in my
country…. I expected it in Nigeria, but not here."(42)
Most
recently, concerns about the health and well-being of detained
asylum seekers were raised after it was learned that a West African
asylum seeker at the Wackenhut facility in Queens had active
tuberculosis and 90 other detainees tested positively for exposure
to tuberculosis apparently because of their exposure at the
facility.(43) Just this month, in the wake of another hunger-strike
by Wackenhut asylum seekers protesting restrictive parole policies,
the Lawyers Committee received reports that asylum seekers were
deprived of newspapers, and transferred, placed in segregation or
threatened with deportation or segregation for participation in the
protest.
Detention is particularly traumatizing for
survivors of torture who may be suffering from the physical or
psychological effects of torture.(44) As one expert explained: "For
someone who’s been tortured and locked up in a cell as a political
prisoner in their native countries … the experience of being locked
up here again can trigger panic attacks, flashbacks."(45) The mental
health service provided to asylum seekers in detention facilities
can be woefully deficient. Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the
widely-respected Bellevue/New York University Program for Survivors
of Torture recently commented on the inadequacy of mental health
services and emphasized that "[m]any of these individuals are
suffering from depression and anxiety, and it can be exacerbated by
being detained."(46)
II. U.S. and
International Law and Guidelines
A. The 1996 Immigration Law
In
1980, the United States reversed its nearly 30-year policy of
detaining only those newcomers considered a danger to the community
or flight risks.(47) Instead, it began a policy of detaining those
who sought to enter the U.S. without valid documents—a situation
which faces many genuine refugees since they may be unable to obtain
travel documents from the governments that persecute them or may,
like the Kosovo refugees, be stripped of their documents by their
persecutors.(48)
This
detention regime has been codified in the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA" or the "1996
immigration law"), which requires the mandatory detention of various
classes of non-citizens. For asylum seekers, IIRIRA’s "expedited
removal" provisions require "mandatory detention" of all asylum
seekers who arrive in the United States without valid documents,
until they pass out of the "expedited removal" process by
establishing a "credible fear of persecution" in an interview with
an INS asylum officer or a subsequent review by an immigration
judge.(49) The credible fear standard is met if there is a
"significant possibility, taking into account the credibility of the
statements made by the alien in support of the alien’s claim and
such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could
establish eligibility for asylum …."(50) The
Lawyers Committee, in its March 1998 report Slamming the Golden Door: A Year
of Expedited Removal, documented many of the risks that face asylum
seekers under the expedited removal process.
Shortly before the expedited removal provisions
went into effect in April 1997, the INS increased its detention
space and opened two large detention facilities to house asylum
seekers subject to the expedited removal mandatory detention
provisions. These two facilities, both run by private contractors,
are the 200-bed facility near JFK International Airport in Queens,
New York, which is run by Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, and the
300-bed facility near Newark International Airport in Elizabeth, New
Jersey, which is run by Correction Corporation of America (CCA).
While the expedited removal provisions require the
detention of asylum seekers during the expedited removal process, they do not
prohibit parole once asylum seekers have established a credible fear of
persecution and are accordingly no longer subject to expedited removal
proceedings.(51) Since the passage of IIRIRA, INS headquarters has repeatedly
advised INS districts that these asylum seekers are eligible for parole and has
issued memoranda setting forth guidelines regarding the parole of asylum
seekers. For instance, INS expedited removal guidelines issued in December 1997
confirm that: "Parole is a viable option and should be considered for aliens who
meet the credible fear standard, can establish identity and community ties, and
are not subject to any possible bars to asylum involving violence or
misconduct."(52) October 1998 INS guidelines state that "[a]lthough parole is
discretionary in all cases where it is available, it is INS policy to favor
release of aliens found to have
credible fear of persecution, provided that they do not pose a risk
of flight or danger to the community."(53)
B. International Refugee Law and
Guidelines
The roots of international refugee law developed in
the aftermath of World War II. The United States, as a signatory to the 1967
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, is bound by Articles 2 through 34
of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.(54)
Article 31 of the 1951
Refugee Convention exempts refugees from being punished because of
their illegal entry or presence. It also provides that states shall
not restrict the movements of entering asylum seekers more than
necessary.
The
Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR), of which the United States is a member, has
concluded that detention of asylum seekers "should normally be
avoided."(55) The Executive Committee has also urged that national
legislation and/or administrative practice distinguish between the
situation of asylum seekers and that of other aliens, and that
detention measures taken with respect to asylum seekers be subject
to judicial or administrative review.(56)
In
1998, the Executive Committee specifically addressed the use of
detention with respect to asylum seekers, stating that it:
Deplores that many countries continue
routinely to detain asylum seekers (including minors) on an
arbitrary basis, for unduly prolonged periods, and without giving
them adequate access to UNHCR and to fair procedures for timely
review of their detention status; notes that such detention
practices are inconsistent with established human rights standards
and urges States to explore more actively all feasible
alternatives to detention;(57)
In
February 1999, the UNHCR issued revised Guidelines on the Detention
of Asylum Seekers (the "UNHCR Guidelines"). The UNHCR Guidelines
affirm that "[a]s a general rule, asylum seekers should not be
detained," and that "the use of detention is, in many instances,
contrary to the norms and principles of international law."(58)
Urging a "presumption against detention," the UNHCR Guidelines state
that "viable alternatives to detention . . . should be applied first
unless there is evidence to suggest that such an alternative would
not be effective in an individual case." When a decision to detain
is made, the Guidelines recommend that such a decision "only be
imposed in a non discriminatory manner for a minimal period" and
that procedural guarantees be provided for, including "automatic
review before a judicial or administrative body independent of the
detaining authorities" and subsequent "regular periodic reviews of
the necessity for the continuance of detention."(59)
The
use of detention to deter future asylum seekers from seeking
protection is contrary to principles of international protection.
This conclusion is confirmed by the UNHCR Guidelines, which confirm
that: "Detention of asylum seekers which is applied … as part of a
policy to deter future asylum seekers, or to dissuade those who have
commenced their claims from pursuing them, is contrary to the norms
of refugee law. It should not be used as a punitive or disciplinary
measure for illegal entry or presence in the country…."(60)
Moreover, as one commentator has explained: "Detention for purposes
of deterrence is a form of punishment, in that it deprives a person
of their liberty for no other reason than their having been forced
into exile. It is a practice that is legally questionable under
Articles 31 and 33 of the United Nations
Convention…."(61)
III. The
INS’s Long-standing Failure to Implement Parole
for Asylum Seekers
The
INS has a long and well-documented history of failing to parole
asylum seekers effectively and consistently. Despite its repeated
issuance of guidelines on the parole of asylum seekers, INS
headquarters has not taken adequate steps to ensure that INS
districts comply with those guidelines. It has also failed to issue
regulations to ensure that districts do comply.
A. Early Failures and INS
Commitment to Reinvigorate
the Asylum Parole Program
The
INS formally issued guidelines for the parole of asylum seekers in
April 1992 when it launched its Asylum Pre-Screening Officer (APSO)
Parole Program.
The guidelines were launched following the successful completion of an
eighteen-month pilot parole project, which had been initiated in 1990.(62) The
parole criteria included determinations regarding the credibility of the
individual’s asylum claim, the individual’s identity, and whether the individual
had a place to live, means of support, or legal representation. Aggravated
felons, security risks and other categories of persons were specifically
excluded from consideration. In the April 1992 memorandum launching the parole
program, the INS Commissioner explained that:
The
Service has limited detention space. By adopting the Parole
Project, the Service will be able to detain those persons most
likely to abscond or to pose a threat to public safety rather than
base the detention decision solely or primarily on the
availability of detention space.(63)
In its
monitoring of the parole program, the INS reiterated its support of
the program and the goals that it was intended to achieve. For
example, in a February 1994 memorandum to the Office of the INS
Commissioner, the INS Acting General Counsel explained
that:
[t]his program is designed both to temper the
harsh consequences of the detention statute upon legitimate asylum
seekers, who must often flee their countries with no travel
documents or else must resort to using fraudulent documents, and
to reduce overcrowding of INS detention
space.(64)
The
INS’s failure to effectively implement the APSO parole program has
been documented by various organizations and the press. In an April
1993 assessment of the parole program, the Lawyers Committee
reported on problems with the implementation of the program and
noted cases of asylum seekers who remained in detention even though
they appeared to meet the release criteria.(65) In a September 1994
report, the Lawyers Committee concluded that: "Throughout the
two-year history of the APSO Program there has been a serious
problem of non-compliance in certain districts…. This problem stems
primarily from a lack of accountability among the district
directors."(66) The UNHCR raised similar concerns.(67)
The
June 1995 Esmor riot dramatically underscored the problems
associated with prolonged detention and drew attention to the
failure of the INS to effectively implement the asylum parole
program.(68) In fact, the INS’s own report on the riot revealed
deficiencies in the implementation of the APSO parole program at the
facility.(69) The Esmor riot triggered a national examination of INS
policies on detaining asylum seekers.(70) Concerns regarding long
term incarceration of asylum seekers were further fueled by reports
about the lengthy detention of Fauziya Kassindja, who was detained
for more than a year at Esmor and other facilities.(71)
In
January 1996, the Lawyers Committee filed a Petition for Rulemaking,
requesting that the INS issue regulations codifying the APSO parole
program. In that Petition, the Lawyers Committee addressed in detail
the deficiencies in the implementation of the APSO parole program
and stressed the need for regulations to ensure that the parole
program would be implemented properly and consistently.(72) The INS
has declined to issue regulations.
The
INS did however indicate that it planned to reform the APSO parole
program. In June 1996, the INS formed a working group "to expand and
reinvigorate" the parole program. Later that year, the INS began
taking steps to integrate the parole program into the summary
exclusion/credible fear pre-screening procedures that had recently
been enacted.(73) When the 300-bed detention facility re-opened in
Elizabeth, New Jersey, the INS announced its intent to provide for
the parole of asylum seekers and minimize detention
periods.(74)
B. Continuing Failure to
Implement Asylum Parole Guidelines
Despite a professed commitment to reinvigorate
parole for asylum seekers, the INS has continued to implement its
own parole guidelines in an ineffective and inconsistent manner. The
national parole rate itself is unclear: one report indicated that
the parole rate for asylum seekers was about ten percent, a second
indicated it was about twenty-seven percent and a third indicated
that it was about forty percent.(75) These reported parole rates are
disturbingly low, particularly in light of the indications of a high
immigration court appearance rate for those who are paroled from INS
detention.(76) However, even these rates cannot be confirmed as the
INS has not provided statistical information in response to our
requests.(77)
Meanwhile, over the last year, human rights groups,
the press, practitioners, and commentators have repeatedly cited deficiencies in
the administration of the asylum parole guidelines. For instance, the Lawyers
Committee’s spring 1998 report on the expedited removal process, Slamming the
Golden Door: A Year of Expedited Removal,(78) addressed the
issue of the unnecessary imprisonment of bona fide asylum seekers.
Noting the INS's continuing failure to implement the parole program,
the Lawyers Committee urged yet again that regulations be issued to
standardize the program. The Women's Commission for Refugee Women
and Children, in a July 1998 report, expressed concern about "the
INS's continued and inexplicable delegation of detention authority
to its district offices and local prisons, resulting in disparate
detention practices across the county and causing asylum seekers
further trauma and distress."(79) Human Rights Watch reported that
"the INS’s parole program for asylum seekers ... has suffered from
insufficient funding and inconsistent application by INS district
directors" and that "many detainees, including asylum seekers, are
imprisoned for exceedingly long periods of time, even for as long as
three or four years."(80)
On June 22, 1998, The New York Times reported
on the inconsistency in the handling of parole decisions. The article pointed
out that "important decisions—from how long it takes to review an
asylum-seeker's case to whether he or she is quickly paroled or detained for
months—seem to hinge more on the number of beds available at a detention center
than on a cohesive national policy." A November 1998 article in The Boston
Globe profiled the cases of
several detained asylum seekers, noting that: "parole policies
differ from INS facility to facility. Some are more lenient; others,
such as Wackenhut [the Queens facility], almost never grant
parole."(81) Practitioners and commentators have also reported
inconsistencies and changing parole policies; the president of the
American Bar Association and the Association of the Bar of the City
of New York have criticized the INS’s detention and parole
practices.(82)
On May
17, 1999, the Secretary of State’s Advisory Committee on Religious
Freedom submitted its final report and addressed the detention of
asylum seekers and concerns regarding the variation of release
policies between INS districts. The Committee on Religious Freedom
concluded that: "The unnecessary detention of already traumatized
victims of religious persecution, as well as other types of
persecution, should be examined with the goal of providing
release….. Serious concerns have been raised over the length of time
these traumatized individuals are spending in detention facilities,
the conditions they are being kept in, the types of detention
facility that are being used and the variation in policies from
district to district."(83)
The
New York and New Jersey INS districts—which house two of the largest
detention facilities for arriving asylum seekers— have widely been
reported to be among the most restrictive in paroling asylum
seekers.(84) Last year, the Expedited Removal Study report issued by
Santa Clara University indicated that, for those asylum seekers
included in the study, asylum seekers in New York and New Jersey
were detained for the longest periods of time: asylum seekers in New
York spent an average of 92 days in detention and asylum seekers in
New Jersey spent an average of 88 days in detention, whereas asylum
seekers in San Francisco and Miami spent an average of 44 and 62
days respectively in detention.(85) In a recent update, the
Expedited Removal Study reported that, for the second year of its
study, the average length of detention for asylum seekers in its
database had increased in New York to 109 days and had slightly
decreased in Newark to 81 days.(86)
In
addition, the Expedited Removal Study recently concluded that, for
cases in its database, "[l]ength of detention varies by country of
nationality," and that "[s]everal African countries have average
detention lengths well above average" in its databases. The Study
could not draw definitive conclusions from its data and noted
several possible explanations for the lengthy detention of Africans,
including the possibility "that the parole policy was applied in a
manner which disfavored African asylum seekers."(87)
New York: The New York INS district is
among the most restrictive in the country. In fact, as noted above, the
Expedited Removal Study reported that, for those asylum seekers in its database,
those detained in New York were detained the longest—an average of 92 days in
one year and 109 days in the second. In September 1998, the Lawyers Committee
surveyed its own cases and those of other legal service organizations that
participate in a collaborative detention representation project at the Wackenhut
detention facility in Queens, New York.(88) Of the 70 asylum cases
that had been handled by this project, only one asylum seeker had been released
pursuant to the asylum parole guidelines.(89) And that one asylum-seeker (a
doctor from Afghanistan whose case is profiled in section I of this report) was
in fact initially denied parole by the New York INS district. Only after
inquiries by the Lawyers Committee and a Congressional office did the INS
release him. More recently, an August 1999 survey of 121 Wackenhut cases
represented by the detention representation project indicates that additional
Wackenhut clients have been paroled. But only 3 of those releases appear to be
pre-hearing releases pursuant to the asylum parole guidelines; an additional 4
releases were in conjunction with the Vera Institute pilot project (which, as
discussed below, will not be accepting new parole candidates after September),
and an additional 6 releases were (i) medical parole releases, (ii) releases of
Cuban nationals (Cubans arriving by air are exempt from expedited removal), or
(iii) releases, after lengthy detentions, of individuals who were granted
withholding of removal by an immigration judge, or in one case, won an appeal in
federal court after over two years in detention.(90) Of the 3 pre-hearing
Wackenhut releases pursuant to the asylum parole guidelines, one was an ethnic
Albanian from Kosovo who arrived during the recent Kosovo conflict, and another
was released only two weeks before her hearing ("Mina," whose case is profiled
in section I, was released after three months of detention following press
interest and inquiries to INS headquarters). On the positive side, the New York
district appears to routinely parole families who are held at airport-area
hotels.(91) The New York INS’s overall parole rate remains low: it has been
reported to be about 21% and more recently about 27%.(92) The parole rate for
asylum seekers at the Wackenhut detention facility is likely lower, as the INS
has declined to break down its parole figures to reflect the number of paroles
from Wackenhut as opposed to the number of hotel releases. The New York INS has
also declined to specify how many paroled asylum seekers were released pursuant
to the asylum parole guidelines, and how many were released for medical or other
reasons. The New York INS’s failure to follow the parole guidelines is reflected
not only in the District’s low parole rate, but also in the statements of its
officers and the language of its written parole denials. For instance, Mina’s
pro bono lawyer was told by an INS officer that the New York INS was not
obligated to follow the asylum parole guidelines. The pro bono lawyer for "Fatima Kwakuud," whose
case is also profiled in section I of this report, was told that the
only individuals who would be paroled from Wackenhut were those who
were "near death" or government witnesses. In addition, parole
denial letters issued by the New York INS do not assess – or even
address – the eligibility for parole of asylum seekers under the
asylum parole guidelines. In fact, New York parole denial letters
have implied that the fact that an asylum seeker has passed the
credible fear process is not even relevant to parole eligibility.
Instead, these denial letters imply that granting parole requests is
somehow contrary to "congressional intent." Meanwhile, it is asylum
seekers, like those profiled in section I of this report, who suffer
because of failures to follow the parole guidelines. Last fall,
asylum seekers at the Wackenhut detention facility launched a
hunger-strike protesting the length of detention and INS parole
policies. Just last month at Wackenhut, another hunger-strike was
launched in protest of the New York INS’s release policies and, as
of mid-August, one asylum seeker from Uganda continued to refuse
food.(93)
New Jersey: The New Jersey INS
district re-opened the Elizabeth detention facility in late 1997 with promises
of effective parole procedures for asylum seekers, procedures that had not been
effectively implemented at the time of the Esmor riot.(94) As a result of the New Jersey district’s
policies, some deserving asylum seekers were paroled. The benefits
of release are clear. One of our clients, a torture survivor and
journalist from an African country, was paroled to the care of a
rabbi and his wife. Because he had been released, the client was
able to receive needed care in the Bellevue/NYU Program for
Survivors of Torture and was subsequently granted asylum. However,
in the spring of 1998, the New Jersey INS district changed its
parole practices.(95) Its parole rate dropped dramatically: from a
parole rate that was reportedly about eighty-nine percent to a rate
of about twenty-one percent.(96) An August 1999 survey of 138 cases
represented by the collaborative detention representation project at
the Elizabeth facility indicates that only 39 of those 138 clients
(about 28%) have been paroled from Elizabeth – and only 6 of those
39 were paroled after the New Jersey INS’s change in policy.(97) The
New Jersey INS district director has confirmed that she sees the use
of detention as a deterrent.(98) As a result, asylum seekers like
Adebayo Ladipo and "Kassim," who have legal family members here in
the U.S., have spent months or longer in detention before they were
granted asylum.(99) Another case that underscores the human impact
of such policies is that of Maja and Nicola Donaj, a young Albanian
couple who, at the time their story was publicized, had already been
detained for about 22 months at the Elizabeth facility, despite the
fact that their U.S. citizen family members had repeatedly offered
to sponsor them for parole.(100) After the case was publicized, the
couple was released and ultimately granted asylum. In the fall of
1998, asylum seekers at the Elizabeth facility launched a
hunger-strike, protesting the New Jersey INS’s change in parole
policy and other concerns.(101) The New Jersey INS’s policies do not
appear to have improved. In fact, the New Jersey INS has continued
to detain a group of asylum seekers who have been held for over six
months without a merits hearing while the INS and an immigration
judge awaited the Board of Immigration Appeal’s resolution of their
dispute over the appropriate document to be issued to initiate
immigration court proceedings.
Miami: Parole policies were initially
restrictive in 1997, with the district Director rarely granting
parole and requiring the payment of bonds of $5000. In 1998, the
Miami INS’s policies changed and since that time attorneys report
that asylum seekers are regularly paroled from the Krome detention
facility. As the improvement in parole policy was influenced by a
lack of bed-space, the policy may change yet again.(102)
Los Angeles:
The Los Angeles INS has apparently changed its parole policies
several times. While it was initially rather easy to be released in
1997, by the fall of 1998, it had become very difficult. An April
1999 update from the Expedited Removal Study reflected, for those
asylum seekers included in the study, an increase in average length
of detention from 43 days (in the year beginning April 1, 2025) to
106 days (in the period beginning April 1, 2025). One Los Angeles
attorney reported that of approximately 40 clients who were granted
asylum in 1998, not one was paroled. Instead, they were detained
generally for about four months. While parole policies appear to
have improved somewhat, it appears that releases have only increased
because of the overcrowding.(103)
San Francisco:
Parole practices have reportedly become more restrictive. Asylum
seekers are typically being released only after they have been
granted asylum, which means they are detained for several months or
much longer if an appeal is necessary.(104)
Minneapolis/St. Paul: Parole practices were very
restrictive in 1998. However, during 1999, apparently as a result of
a lack of space to hold asylum seekers, the INS was releasing some
asylum seekers who passed the credible fear process, but typically
requiring bonds amounting to $7000 to $10,000.(105)
Chicago: Parole practices were
reportedly very restrictive in 1998. But beginning in late 1998, Chicago INS
officials became more willing to consider parole applications and in some cases
have released asylum seekers to community groups. More recently, legal and human
rights organizations raised concerns about the INS’s refusal to parole 88
Chinese asylum seekers who have been held in a maximum-security jail in Ullin,
Illinois. INS headquarters had arranged for the asylum seekers, who had arrived
in the Northern Mariana Islands, to be brought to Ullin. Because of the dearth
of local immigration lawyers, INS headquarters had asked pro bono organizations from Chicago, New
York and other cities to travel to Ullin to assist in preparing
parole applications for the asylum seekers, only to turn around and
deny the parole requests based on concerns for the asylum seekers’
safety.(106)
Vera Appearance Assistance Program: One positive development has been the
initiation of a pilot supervised release project by the INS in
conjunction with the Appearance Assistance Program (AAP) of the Vera
Institute for Justice. Pursuant to this program, eligible asylum
seekers who have passed the credible fear process may be released to
family members. Their release and appearance at subsequent
immigration court hearings is monitored by the AAP. However, the AAP
is just a pilot project and it is scheduled to stop accepting new
parole candidates in September. As it is a pilot project, only a
relatively small number of asylum seekers are participating in the
project, which is operating in New York.(107) While some deserving
asylum seekers have been released through the AAP, other deserving
candidates have not been eligible for release through the AAP
because their close family members or friends have lived in other
cities. In addition(108), although the New York INS appears to be
generally following the AAP’s recommendations, the New York INS did
not permit the AAP to begin operating at the Wackenhut detention
facility until September 1998.
Last
year, INS headquarters announced that it was conducting a review of
its asylum parole practices and was willing to share its findings
with Members of Congress and non-governmental organizations.
Although the INS had indicated that this review would be concluded
in the fall of 1998, no such review has been completed. While INS
headquarters is continuing to review the asylum parole system, it
has still not issued regulations on the parole of asylum seekers and
taken other decisive steps to ensure the operation of an effective
and fair parole system for asylum seekers.
In the
meantime, INS districts have continued to implement parole policies
for asylum seekers in a restrictive, inconsistent, and constantly
shifting manner. The effect of these policies on asylum seekers
themselves was underscored by the frustrations demonstrated by
detained asylum seekers during the hunger-strikes at the Elizabeth
and Wackenhut detention facilities in October 1998. As noted above,
the length of detention and the lack of parole were central concerns
of the asylum seekers at both facilities.(109) Similar concerns were
voiced again in recent weeks by asylum seekers who launched a
hunger-strike at the Wackenhut detention facility at the end of
July.(110)
The
frustration felt by individual asylum seekers is amply illustrated
by the words of Adelaide Abankwah, whose asylum claim was based on
fear of female genital mutilation in Ghana. Speaking to a reporter
after over two years in INS detention, Ms. Abankwah said: "Please
tell [the INS] that I am not a criminal. I just want to be free. . .
. . I feel like I am dead here. There is no fresh air. I cannot eat.
I feel that this is where I will die."(111)
IV. Current
Detention Practices are Unduly Costly and Offend American Traditions of Justice
A. The Substantial Fiscal Cost of
Detention
As a
result of the changes in U.S. detention policy, the average length
of INS detention increased dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s.
In 1981, the average stay in an INS detention facility was fewer
than four days. By 1990, it had grown to 23 days, with many
individuals detained for more than a year. In 1992, it had increased
again to an average stay of 54 days. In order to meet the need for
additional detention space, the INS detention budget for the same
period grew sharply from $15.7 million to $149
million.(112)
The
passage of the 1996 law, which as noted above requires the mandatory
detention of various classes of aliens, has led to a further
increase in the number of individuals in INS detention. In fact, the
INS nearly doubled its detention capacity in the two years since
passage of IIRIRA.(113) The cost of holding INS detainees continues
to increase. For example, the INS estimated that in 1997 it paid an
average of $58 per day to hold a detainee in a local jail. Thus, the
cost for a six-month detention of a single detainee would be more
than $10,000.(114) It was recently reported that the cost of
detaining an asylum seeker is $144.61 at the Elizabeth detention
facility and $100 per day at the Wackenhut detention facility.(115)
Most disturbingly, the INS has indicated that it does not even know
exactly how many asylum seekers are in detention, as it does not
track this number.(116) As of the end of February 1998,
approximately 14,700 persons were in INS detention. By the year
2001, it has been estimated that approximately 24,000 persons will
be detained at an annual cost of more than $500 million.
(117)
B. Detaining Asylum Seekers
Interferes with Access to Counsel and Undermines their Ability to Prove their
Asylum Cases
The
fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of asylum seekers is
severely undermined by the very fact of detention and by particular
detention practices. Without a doubt, it is particularly difficult
for a detained asylum seeker to obtain legal counsel. Many detained
asylum seekers are held at local or county jails in remote areas
where it is often difficult to obtain legal counsel. For those who
cannot afford to pay for counsel, the availability of free legal
assistance is limited.(118) Even at larger detention facilities, the
need for free legal assistance often surpasses the availability of
such assistance.
Those who are lucky enough to secure competent legal
counsel will face substantial obstacles in preparing and proving their asylum
cases, simply because they are detained. As the UNHCR recently pointed out:
"Detention creates numerous obstacles for asylum seekers. Detained asylum
seekers are often unable to secure counsel, have difficulty communicating with
family members, and have limited access to legal materials and interpreters to
assist in preparing their claims."(119) In addition, the ability of the attorney
and client to meet to prepare the asylum case is necessarily limited by the fact
that the attorney must often travel a great distance to meet with the client.
For example, a New York City pro bono attorney who needs to visit a
client held at the Elizabeth or Wackenhut facilities must travel at least an
hour to an hour and a half each way, using various
combinations of subways, railroad, taxis or buses. When asylum
seekers are held in more remote county or local jails, it can take
attorneys several hours just to reach the facility. After arriving
at the facility, the attorney may then wait anywhere from 10 minutes
to an hour or more for the client to be brought to the visitation
area.
The
ability of the client to assist in the preparation of her case is
substantially limited by the fact that she is detained. For example,
her ability to gather documentation and locate and communicate with
witnesses who could corroborate the facts of her claim is severely
hampered. Although telephones are available, she may not be able to
afford a calling card. And the telephones are routinely located in
large "pod" or "dorm" areas that may hold scores of other detainees,
so that no meaningful degree of privacy is available to make calls
to counsel or potential witnesses.(120) In addition, detained asylum
seekers often have little or no meaningful access to legal materials
or country condition reports that are essential to the preparation
of their cases.(121)
Most
disturbingly, some immigration judges, citing the cost to the
government of detaining asylum seekers, refuse to allow attorneys
adequate time to gather evidence and prepare their clients’ cases.
At the Elizabeth detention facility, attorneys are sometimes given
only three or four weeks between their preliminary appearance and
the merits hearing date to prepare their clients’ cases. This is
often insufficient time to track down facts and expert witnesses or
to secure evidence from the client’s home country. In contrast,
non-detained asylum seekers are routinely afforded several months or
more to prepare their cases.
In the
end, justice is not served by detaining asylum seekers. And since an
asylum seeker who is truly afraid to return home will often appeal
an adverse decision, the detention costs to U.S. taxpayers increase
exponentially as the asylum seeker remains detained for an
additional six months, one year, or longer while he or she pursues
appeals.
V.
Conclusion
The
critical importance of paroling individuals who have fled from
torture, rape, and persecution cannot be overstated. Release from
detention provides obvious humanitarian advantages for asylum
seekers and fiscal advantages to the United States. Current U.S.
detention practices are inconsistent with international law and
guidelines. They are also inconsistent with American traditions of
justice and of protecting the persecuted. In the words of a woman
who fled from domestic violence in Peru only to be handcuffed,
shackled, strip-searched, and detained upon arrival in America, "I
lie in my bed at night, and I say to myself, ‘Iuli, you’re in
America.’ But then I ask myself, ‘How in God’s name can this be
America?’"(122)
U.S.
detention and parole practices for asylum seekers are fatally
flawed. As outlined in our recommendations, Congress, the Department
of Justice, and the INS must take decisive action to remedy this
situation. Only then can we ensure that those who flee to our shores
"yearning to breathe free" do not languish behind bars in this land
of liberty.
Endnotes
1. Letter, dated July 20, 1999, from Olufemi Abdulai,
a Nigerian asylum seeker represented pro bono by an attorney at the law firm
of Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione through the
Lawyers Committee’s Asylum Program. Mr. Abdulai has been held at
the Elizabeth, New Jersey detention facility since March 22, 1998.
2. See Daniel Williams, "Macedonia Slows Flow
of Incoming Refugees," The Washington Post, March 31, 2025 ("Many
refugees have reported that Yugoslav authorities are stripping them of their
passports and other personal documents ….). Even approaching a persecuting
government to request travel documents may in some cases place a refugee’s life
at risk. In some countries, ravaged by civil war, there may not even be a
functioning government to issue such documents. See supra
note 13 regarding Somalia. Other refugees may be forced to flee
without notice and without an opportunity to gather identity
documents; some purposefully leave them behind knowing that if
they are stopped by enemy forces, such documents could facilitate
their identification and lead to certain harm.
3. Immigration and Nationality
Act [hereinafter INA] § 235 (b)(1)(B)(v).
4. The 1996 immigration law, its
expedited removal/credible fear procedures, and the INS guidelines
regarding the parole of asylum seekers are discussed in more
detail in sections II and III below.
5. See section III below.
6. Juan Forero, "They arrive in fear, languish in
custody," The Newark Star-Ledger, November 22, 1998.
7. Mr. A has asked that his name not be used. Mr. A
was represented pro bono by Katherine Mulhern of Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, through the Lawyers Committee’s Asylum Program. Mr. A’s case was
mentioned in articles that appeared in The Newark Star-Ledger and The
National Law Journal. See Forero, "They arrive in fear, languish in
custody," supra note 6; Lisa Brennan, "Rights Committee Gets Results,"
The National Law Journal, January 25, 1999.
8. Because she is fearful for the safety of
relatives, Mina has asked that her real name not be used. Mina was represented
pro bono by
attorneys at the law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton, through the
Lawyers Committee’s Asylum Program.
9. Mr. Ladipo was represented pro bono by attorneys at the law firm of
Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch through the Lawyers Committee’s
Asylum Program.
10. Because she fears for the
safety of family members, Karantha S. has asked that her full name
not be revealed.
11. Mr. Mulamba was represented pro bono by attorneys at the law firm
of Davis Polk & Wardwell through the Lawyers Committee’s
Asylum Program.
12. This refugee, who is a rape survivor, asked that
her real name not be used. The name "Fatima Kwakuud" was used when her story was
profiled in The New York Times. See Anthony Lewis, "The Road to Asylum,"
The New York Times, December 8, 1997, at 25. Fatima was represented
pro bono by attorneys at the law firm of
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, through the Lawyers
Committee’s Asylum Program.
13. See supra note 2 for a discussion
of the reasons why refugees are often forced to flee without travel documents.
Even the U.S. State Department has recognized, repeatedly, that due to the
situation in Somalia (which lacks a recognized central government), most Somalis
lack international travel documents. See, e.g., U.S. State Department
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1998 (February 1999), for 1997
(March 1998) at 315, for 1996 (February 1997) at 252, for 1995
(April 1996) at 239.
14. Because he fears for the safety of family
members, Dr. Z has asked that his name not be used. He was represented pro
bono by
attorneys at the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP through the Lawyers Committee’s Asylum Program.
15. Kassim has asked that his full name not be used.
Kassim was represented pro bono by the Hebrew Immigrant Aid
Society.
16. Because he fears for the safety of family
members, Mr. N. has asked that his name not be used. Mr. N. was represented
pro bono
by attorneys at the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
& Flom LLP through the Lawyers Committee’s Asylum Program.
17. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480
U.S. 421 (1987); INS v. Stevic, 467
U.S. 407 (1984).
18. Mr. Nunu is represented pro bono, though the Lawyers Committee’s
Asylum Program, by Yale Law School’s Jerome N. Frank Legal
Services Organization and the law firm of Davis Polk &
Wardwell.
19. Eligible nationals of a country designated for
temporary protected status (TPS) are not subject to deportation or removal. They
may live and work in the U.S. while the status continues. See INA § 244(b)(1); 63 Fed. Reg. 51958 (Sept. 29, 1998).
20. Mr. Eboigbe is represented pro bono by the
Robert B. McKay Community Outreach Law Program of The Association of the Bar of
the City of New York (hereinafter Association). By letter dated April 12, 1999,
the Association wrote to INS Commissioner Doris Meissner to express its concerns
regarding the INS’s practices on detaining asylum seekers, including Mr.
Eboigbe. Mr. Eboigbe’s story was also profiled in a March 1999 article in The
Village Voice. See Alisa Solomon, "A Dream Detained," The Village
Voice, March 24-30,
1999.
21. Minnesota Lawyers for International Human Rights
& Physicians for Human Rights, Hidden from View: Human Rights Conditions
in the Krome Detention Center (1991); Immigrants' Rights Project, American
Civil Liberties Union, Justice Detained: Conditions at the Varick Street
Immigration Detention Center (1994); Women’s Commission for Refugee Women
and Children, A Cry for Help: Chinese Women in INS Detention (March 1995).
22. Ashley Dunn, "Shut the Detention Center, Local
Authorities Urge," The New York Times, June 20, 1995, at B4; see
also Celia W. Dugger, "In Pursuit of Freedom, Only to Find Prison Bars,"
The New York Times, July 8, 1996, at B1.
23. Jama v. INS, 22 F. Supp.2d 353 (D.N.J. 1998).
24. Celia W. Dugger, "U.S. Frees African Fleeing
Ritual Mutilation," The New York Times, April 25, 2025 at A1; see
also Testimony of Fauziya Kassindja before the Senate Subcommittee on
Immigration, September 16, 1998; Fauziya Kassindja & Layli Miller Bashir,
Do They Hear You When You Cry?,
(Delacorte Press: 1998).
25. Womens Commission for Refugee Women and Children,
Forgotten Prisoners (April 1997); see also Gini Sikes, "Why Are
Women Who Escape Genital Mutilation Being Jailed in America," Marie
Claire, May
1998, at 52 (reporting on neglected needs of detained women; women
have received fewer vital services than men, have been denied
English classes, interpreters and adequate gynecological and other
medical care).
26. Human Rights Watch, Locked Away: Immigration
Detainees in Jails in the United States (September 1998), at 4.
27. Amnesty International, "Treated as Criminal:
Asylum Seekers in the USA," Rights for All (October 1998), at 97-98.
28. Jacob Bernstein, "Cleaning Up Krome," Miami
New Times, December 24, 1998; see also Nancy San Martin, "Krome
Report," Sun-Sentinel, July 18, 2024 at 3B; William Branigin, "INS
Officials Allegedly Deceived Congress on Illegal Aliens," The Washington
Post, June 21,
1996.
29. Bernstein, "Cleaning up Krome," supra note
28; see also Teresa Mears, "Detainees Held by INS Say Jails are Rife with
Abuse," The Boston Globe, August 2, 1998.
30. Mears, id.; see also Andres
Viglucci, "Human Rights Group Assails Jail Torture Probe," Miami Herald, June 24, 1999.
31. Id.; see also Ronald Smothers, "3
Prison Guards Guilty of Abuse of Immigrants," The New York Times, March 7, 1998, at
A1.
32. Jim Lobe, "Rights–U.S.: Detained Immigrants
Suffer in Local Jails," Inter Press Service, September 9, 1998; J.M. Hirsch,
"Immigrants in N.H. Jail Protest," The Associated Press, August 17, 1999.
33. Leslie Wirpsa, "INS Detentions: No Crime Needed,"
The National Catholic Reporter, Vol. 34, July 17, 1998.
34. Mears, supra note 27.
35. John White, "Treatment of Detainees Hit,"
Chicago Sun-Times,
October 6, 1998.
36. See, e.g., Mirta Ojito, "Inconsistency at
INS Complicates Refugees’ Asylum Quest," The New York Times,
June 22, 2024 (quoting Kivajini Kadambarathnam, from Sri Lanka,
who was separated from her son at Kennedy Airport: "I cried and
cried and cried, but then they put handcuffs on me and that shut
me up. No one had ever done that to me before.").
37. See Elizabeth Llorente, "Detainees at INS
Center Go On Hunger-strike," The Bergen County Record, October 2,
1998, at A3; Ronald Smothers, "Asylum-Seekers Are Confined to Dormitories After
Protest," The New York Times, October 1, 1998, at B6; Juan Forero,
"Asylum Seekers Don’t Like Detention," The Star-Ledger, October 2, 1998.
38. Llorente, supra note 37.
39. Mae Cheng, "Hunger Stike Continues at INS,"
Newsday, October 7,
1998; Margo Adler & Daniel Zwerdling, "Immigrant
Hunger-strikes," National Public Radio, October 11, 1998,
transcript #98101106-216.
40. Somini Sengupta, "Limits on Parole Dash Refugees’
Hopes," The New York Times, November 2, 1998, at B3; see also
Michael Huspek, "The INS’s Futile Detention Practices," San Diego
Union-Tribune, October 7,
1998, at B9 (noting that suicide attempts, protests and
hunger-strikes are on the rise in INS detention facilities
nationwide).
41. Elizabeth Llorente, "Asylum Seekers Live in
Jail-like Conditions," The Bergen County Record, April 11, 1999; see
also Monique El-Faizy and Elizabeth Llorente, "Ex-Guards Tested Positive for
Drug Use," The Bergen County Record, April 19, 1999.
42. Llorente, "Asylum Seekers Live in Jail-like
Conditions," supra
note 41.
43. Susan Sachs, "90 Asylum Seekers at Center are
Infected by Man with TB," The New York Times, July 31, 1999; see
also Cathy Chu, "INS Detentions Protested/Pickets Angry Over Conditions,"
Newsday, August 2, 1999.
44. See Michele R. Pistone, "Justice Delayed
is Justice Denied: A Proposal for Ending the Unnecessary Detention of Asylum
Seekers," Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol. 12 (Spring 1999) at 207-11
(citing Allen S. Keller M.D., "Congress Should Drop Summary Exclusion from
Immigration Bill," Salt Lake Tribune,
June 16, 2025).
45. Elizabeth Llorente, "Dreams Turn to Despair,"
The Bergen County Record, May 24, 2025 (quoting Dr. Beverly Pincus, director of
Cross-Cultural Counseling Center at the International Institute of
New Jersey).
46. Juan Forero, "INS detainees, agency dispute
quality of care," The Newark Star Ledger, August 22, 1999; see
also Llorente, supra note 45 (quoting Dr. Hawthorne E.
Smith of the Bellevue/New York University Program for Survivors of
Torture; based upon his treatment of asylum seekers who had been
detained in the Elizabeth detention facility, "the trauma they
develop because of their detention in Elizabeth has been as
pertinent as the trauma they experienced at home in their
countries.").
47. U.S. Committee for Refugees, Despite A
Generous Spirit: Denying Asylum in the United States 18-22 (1986); Helsinki
Watch, Detained, Denied, Deported: Asylum-seekers in the United States 45-50 (1989).
48. See supra
note 2 and accompanying text.
49. INA § 235(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV). See also D.
Kerwin & C. Wheeler, "IIRIRA’s Detention Mandates: An Exercise in Overkill,"
75 Interpreter Releases 1433, at 1439; Daniel C. Horne and L. Ari
Weitzhandler, "Asylum Law After the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act," Immigration Briefings (April 1997).).
50. INA § 235(b)(1)(B)(v).
51. See INA Section 235(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV); INA
Section 212(d)(5)(A) (providing for parole "on a case-by-case basis for urgent
humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit" for an alien applying
for admission); 8 CFR 235.3(c); 8 CFR 212.5(a); see also Memorandum from
Office of INS Deputy Commissioner, dated March 31, 2025 re: "Implementation of
Expedited Removal," reprinted in 74 Interpreter Releases (April 21, 2025)
("[o]nce an alien has established a credible fear of persecution
or is otherwise referred (as provided by regulation) for a full
removal proceeding under section 240, release of the alien may be
considered under normal parole criteria").
52. Memorandum from INS
Executive Associate Commissioner for Field Operations, Expedited
Removal: Additional Policy Guidelines, December 30, 1997. These
guidelines stem from the "APSO" parole program, which is discussed
in detail in section III below.
53. Memorandum from INS
Executive Associate Commissioner for Field Operations, Detention
Guidelines Effective October 9, 1998, October 7, 2024 (emphasis
added).
54. United Nations Protocol
Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signing January 31,
1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. 267; United Nations Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signing July 28,
1951, 19 U.S.T. 6259, 189 U.N.T.S. 137.
55. United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees Executive Committee Conclusion on
Detention of Refugees and Asylum Seekers, No. 44 (1986). The UNHCR
is the United Nations agency charged with supervising refugee
protection. The United States is a member of the UNHCR Executive
Committee, which provides policy and guidance to UNHCR in the
exercise of its refugee protection mandate.
56. Id.
57. United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees Executive Committee Conclusion on
International Protection, No. 85 (1998).
58. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,
Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of
Asylum-Seekers, February 1999. The Guidelines urge that
exceptions to this general rule (protection of national security
and public order, verification of identity, identification of
basis of claim in a preliminary interview, destruction of
documents/use of fraudulent documents to mislead) be clearly
prescribed by national law in conformity with principles of
international law.
59. Id.
60. Id., at Guideline 3. See also Letter from UNHCR Regional
Representative, dated September 15, 1998, to Senator Spencer
Abraham, Senate Sub-Committee on Immigration in connection with
INS oversight hearings on detention, at 2.
61. Arthur Helton, Detention of Refugees and
Asylum Seekers, in Loescher, Refugee Issues in International
Relations (Oxford University Press, Oxford: 1989); see also Arthur C.
Helton, "The Legality of Detaining Refugees in the United States," 14 N.Y.U.
Rev. Law & Soc. Change 353,
373-80 (1986). It should be noted that other sources of
international law and standards (such as the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights) are also highly relevant to the
question of detention of asylum seekers.
62. See Memorandum from Gene McNary, INS
Commissioner, Pilot Parole Project for Aliens Seeking Asylum in Exclusion
Proceedings (April 27, 2025); Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Interim
Report on the Pilot Parole Project of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service
(New York: 1990). The Lawyers Committee facilitated the
involvement of legal groups, voluntary agencies and local
community groups with the pilot project.
63. Memorandum from Gene McNary, INS Commissioner,
Parole Project for Asylum Seekers at Ports of Entry and in INS Detention (April
20, 1992).
64. Memorandum from Paul W. Virture, Acting General
Counsel, Asylum Pre-Screening: May, 1993 – December 1993 (February 10,
1994).
65. Letter from Arthur Helton,
Director, Refugee Project, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, to
Acting INS Commissioner, April 21, 1993.
66. Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Detention
of Refugees: Problems in Implementation of the Asylum Pre-Screening Officer
Program,
(New York: 1994).
67. Letter from Rene Von Rooyen,
UNHCR Representative, to INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, March 4,
1993.
68 See "The Lessons of Esmor," The New York
Times, June 21, 1995, at A18; Ashley Dunn, "Jail Official Blames
Revolt on Agency: Length of Stay is Cited in Immigrants Uprising," The New
York Times, June 21, 1995, at B1.
The Esmor riot and conditions that triggered it are referenced in
section IB above.
69. INS headquarters Detention and Deportation
Division, The Elizabeth, New Jersey Contract Detention Facility Operated by
ESMOR Inc.: Interim Report, at 54-55 (July 20, 2024). The report noted
that a stronger APSO parole program would have served the goals of
making appropriate use of detention space, while protecting the
rights of credible asylum seekers.
70. |
