Slamming "The Golden Door":
A Year of Expedited Removal

Executive Summary and Recommendations

Expedited removal is a system designed to fail. The barriers are just too high and the process too summary to avoid sending some refugees back to persecution and torture by mistake. And though some steps have been taken to make the best of a bad system, many serious problems remain.

Problems at the airport. Secondary inspection occurs at the airport. It is the stage both where errors have the most severe consequences -- immediate deportation -- and are most likely to happen. Here, life and death decisions are made by low level inspection officials with little expertise in recognizing bona fide refugees, and the refugees themselves have no access to legal assistance. The gravest problems include abusive treatment, inadequate translation, denial of access to counsel and barring outside agencies from monitoring the fairness and accuracy of the process.

Problems at the credible fear determination and "review." Those who make it past the gauntlet at the airport still have to convince an asylum officer within days that they have a significant possibility of winning asylum -- a daunting task under the best circumstances. A year of experience with this hasty process has raised serious concerns, including

• inconsistencies among asylum offices in the conduct of interviews;
• poor translation that can lead to wrong decisions and inaccurate records; and
• the immigration judge "review" process, in which asylum seekers have little time to prepare and often are not allowed to have counsel participate.

Unnecessary imprisonment of bona fide asylum seekers. It is both inhumane and wasteful to jail people who have established a significant possibility of gaining asylum and who have some support in the community. Yet the INS fails to comply with its own program for paroling such bona fide asylum seekers. Asylum seekers who meet the relevant criteria should be supported by family and friends, not the U.S. taxpayer.

Expedited removal was unnecessary in the first place, because it was meant to address a problem that did not exist. And we fundamentally doubt that it can ever operate without making tragic mistakes. But there are steps that can and must be taken to lessen the chances of error as long as expedited removal remains the law:

1) The INS should allow regular monitoring of all stages of expedited removal, including secondary inspection, by nongovernmental organizations and by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

2) The INS should inform individuals before the secondary inspection interview that the interview will be their only opportunity to inform U.S. authorities that they need protection.

3) The INS should permit arrivees to contact outside agencies, family or friends before the secondary inspection interview and permit them, upon request, to be represented in the interview.

4) The INS should guarantee the confidentiality of secondary inspection interviews by ensuring that they are conducted in private.

5) The secondary inspection interview should not continue once an individual has expressed either an intent to seek asylum or fear of returning.

6) The INS should provide qualified interpreters, fluent in the individual's native language or other language of fluency/choice, throughout the expedited removal process, including during secondary inspection. All interpreters should be bound by obligations of confidentiality. And the INS should provide, upon request, interpreters of a specific gender.

7) The INS should, through training and guidance, standardize the conduct of credible fear interviews, such that they serve a screening function without becoming the equivalent of a full-blown affirmative asylum interview.

8) Asylum seekers should have the right to full participation of counsel in the review of a negative credible fear determination. Full participation includes the right to make opening and closing statements, the right to call and examine witnesses, and the right to introduce evidence — in short, the right to advocate on behalf of a client who claims that deportation will mean persecution and torture.

9) The INS should immediately direct all districts to implement fully the INS parole program and follow up this directive with regulations formally standardizing the policy.

10) The INS should respond fully to all outstanding Freedom of Information Act requests for data relating to expedited removal and going forward should provide reliable, timely statistics.

After Sept. 11th | Asylum in the U.S. | Human Rights Defenders | Human Rights Issues | International Justice |
International Refugee Policy | Workers Rights | Media Room | About Us | Contribute | Jobs | Contact Us | Publications | Search | Site Map | Home