































Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

Op-Ed: A Country of Immigrants, but not in Their
Favor
Lauren Davis73

Since 2016 the general American public has become more
aware of immigration as a political issue. This Op-Ed’s goal is
to share the author’s observations about the U.S.’s asylum
process as a caseworker and advocate for asylum seekers. The
author has volunteered as a trained caseworker at a Pro-Bono
immigration non-profit organization in the Greater Boston
Area for nearly four years, working with immigrants from
around the world and in very different circumstances. The
article concludes by highlighting areas of failure in the asylum
system and making resource suggestions for those wishing to
learn more.

I. Introduction

Immigration policy is an outlier in the American legal
system. Rather than the judiciary, immigration law falls under
the purview of the executive branch of government and is
classified as a civil matter. This means that immigration law is
both more in flux than other areas of law because it can be
altered by a presidential decision and is not beholden to the
same obligations regarding rights. For instance, two rights not
guaranteed in immigration proceedings are the right to an
attorney and the right to a fair and speedy trial by one's peers.74

Because immigration law exists under the purview of the
executive and legislative branches, the American asylum

74 8 U.S. Code § 1362 - Right to counsel; Fong Yue Ting v. United States,
149 U.S. 730.

73 Brandeis University Undergraduate, Class of 2023.

35



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

system has been set up to fail asylees, especially those most in
need of assistance. The intention of this article is to detail the
numerous ways in which this failure happens and make clear
the negative effects of poor practices.

That being said, one does not need to be a member of
the American Bar Association to practice immigration law. The
United States Department of Justice allows accredited
representatives75 to represent immigrants in immigration court
and hearings. This status requires that applicants undergo
training overseen by a registered organization doing legal
immigration work. The applicant can then be accredited by the
Department of Justice through an application submitted by the
training organization on the aspiring representative’s behalf.
This may seem a weak answer to the lack of right to
representation, particularly since a large number of immigrants
still go without representation. Department of Homeland
Security data released in 2022 indicates that nationally 90.8%
of asylum seekers do not have representation at their
interview.76 However, accredited representatives can be, but
admittedly not always are, trained by organizations dedicated
to actually helping those in need as opposed to being focused
on profit. Accredited representatives are not the solution to low
representation, but they do mitigate it.

Although I am currently waiting for a response to my
application to become an accredited representative, I have had
the opportunity to work on immigration cases since my
freshman year at Brandeis University. I participated in a
student training led by the on-campus wing of the

76 Gendelman, “Inadequate Access to Legal Representation,” 2022.

75 “Federal regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(a)(4) allow non-attorney
‘Accredited Representatives’ to represent aliens before the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and the Executive Office for Immigration
Review (EOIR), which includes the immigration courts and the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA).” (US Department of Justice Recognition and
Accreditation Program).

36



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

organization,77 whose goal is to expand representation in
immigration proceedings and educate the communities affected
by underrepresentation, and then an intensive training to
prepare me for this work. Over the past three years, I have
worked on six asylum cases, one citizenship case, one U-Visa,
one humanitarian parole, one Temporary Protective States case,
and so many intakes that I have lost count. Of all of these types
of cases, the one I consider myself most knowledgeable about
is asylum because of the depth of the work involved on each
individual case.

In fiscal year 2019, nearly 30,000 individuals applied
for asylum in the United States. In the same year 46,508
individuals were granted asylum.78 While it may seem those
numbers do not match up, this discrepancy is due to the long
wait times associated with this type of petition for status. As of
2019 there were 489,003 people in the asylum case
“backlog.”79 The United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) is slowly working through this backlog, but
at the organization I volunteer for we represent clients who
have been waiting for their asylum interview for more than a
decade. That means years of working with any particular client
through this time, helping them take advantage of any benefits
they are eligible for and watching for adjustments to asylum
regulations that may affect their case. Due to the wait times and
the personal and traumatic nature of asylum, there is no
“quick” or “easy” asylum application.

79 “A Mounting Asylum Backlog and Growing Wait Times,” 2021.

78 Table 15, “Refugee Arrivals by Relationship to Principal Applicant and
Sex, Age, and Marital Status,” 2022; Table 16, “Individuals Granted
Asylum Affirmatively or Defensively,” 2022.

77 The name of this organization is consciously omitted, as I do not
represent the organization and am sharing my own opinions.

37



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

II. Historical Precedent and Background

In order to qualify the opinions I share in this article,
some background on the asylum system is useful. Most people
are familiar with the term “refugee,” but fewer people
understand what it means to become one within the United
States. In 1951, the United Nations established The United
Nations Convention on Refugees and, in doing so, established
the principle of non-refoulement,80 the rules of fair asylum
procedures, and an expectation of non-discrimination.81 This
came in the aftermath of World War Two, a time with many
horror stories about American decisions regarding refugees and
intervention. One famous example is President Franklin D.
Roosevelt’s decision to turn around a boat of Jewish refugees
fleeing Nazi Germany because the quota had already been
met.82 Few countries outside of Europe became signatories to
the Convention until the later 20th century.83 The three
standards set by the UN Convention on Refugees only spread
beyond Europe with the Refugee Protocol of 1967.84 While the
U.S. is not a signatory of the UN Convention on Refugees, it is
a signatory to the Refugee Protocol which contains the rights to
leave one’s country, to not be returned, and to seek asylum.

People can qualify for refugee status when they fear or
have faced persecution based on their race, religion, national
origin, political opinion, or membership in a particular social
group. This technically holds true for American asylum policy;

84 The UN General Assembly, “Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,”
1966.

83 “States Parties to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
and the 1967 Protocol,” 2015.

82 Gross, “The U.S. Government Turned Away Thousands of Jewish
Refugees,” 2015.

81 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “The 1951 Refugee
Convention,” 2022.

80 A person cannot be returned to a place where they will be persecuted.

38



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

however, the standard of proof is very high due to the
innumerable inefficiencies and failures of American asylum
policy.

III. American Immigration Today

With history covered, let us begin exploring our modern
immigration system in the same place where an individual’s
experience with the American immigration system typically
does: at the border.85 An individual intending to seek asylum in
the United States is supposed to declare their intention at the
border and then receive a credible fear interview. This name is
self-explanatory: in this interview an officer is supposed to
assess whether a potential asylum seeker has a credible fear of
persecution or torture if returned to their country of origin.86 In
my almost 4 years of working on immigration cases in the
Boston area, during which I have worked on six asylum cases
and the intakes of dozens of other asylum applicants, I have
never once met a single individual who received a credible fear
interview. I don’t know why this isn’t happening, thankfully it
doesn’t make or break a case, but it is certainly a positive to
have a finding of credible fear at the border to include in a
filing.

Once a migrant crosses the border successfully the
process diverges into affirmative asylum and defensive asylum.
An affirmative asylee is one who has entered the United States
legally or without inspection87 and is not in removal

87 “Without inspection” indicates that the individual entered the United
States (crossed the border) without being found out by border patrol or
customs. The US government does not know that the individual is in the
United States.

86 “Questions and Answers,” 2022.

85 In 1953 the US Department of Justice defined the border as within 100
miles of an “external boundary” to the US.

39



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

proceedings. A defensive asylum case is one in which the
individual is already in removal proceedings because they
entered without status. A defensive asylee will typically spend
time in a detention center and may be released to a sponsor
who is willing to take them in. Once an individual crosses the
border, regardless of inspection, their one year clock to submit
their application to even be considered for asylum starts
ticking, unless the applicant has a good reason for not having
submitted within that time. While an asylum seeker might want
a representative to help them submit their application, represent
them in court, and generally guide them through an unfamiliar
legal system, in Immigration Court individuals are not
guaranteed an attorney. This has horrifying consequences in
terms of case outcomes; in fiscal year 2020 represented asylum
seekers had a success rate of 31.1% whereas unrepresented
seekers had a success rate of only 17.7%.88 The number of
unrepresented asylum seekers only continues to rise.

Once they submit their application, defensive applicants
are scheduled for a Master Calendar Hearing89 at which they
may contest their charges and set a date for their immigration
trial. At the time of writing, fall 2022, defensive asylum
applicants often receive a Master Calendar Hearing roughly
two years out from their arrival date. During that hearing, the
asylum seeker or their representative and the judge decide
when their Immigration Court trial will be, although it is rare
for it to be within a year or two of the Master Calendar
Hearing.

In contrast to defensive applicants, once affirmative
asylum applicants submit their application they will receive a
notice with their interview date. Typically, this date is years out
and may be further delayed by USCIS. However, one important
thing to note is that if the client delays their interview, they will

89 Master Calendar Hearing: Respondent (and representative, if represented)
appear before a judge to schedule a date for their trial.

88 “Asylum Denial Rates Continue to Climb,” 2020.

40



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

be penalized. Additionally, rather than present their case to
peers or before a judge, an affirmative asylum seeker must
present their case to an asylum officer. These officers are
ordinary civilians who are trained by United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services in,

...topics such as international refugee law
and the U.S. Asylum Program’s role in
world-wide refugee protection, U.S.
asylum law and its interpretation by the
Board of Immigration Appeals and
federal appellate courts, interviewing
techniques, researching country of origin
information, and
decision-making/writing.90

This may sound expansive, however all of this is covered over
a period of only five and a half weeks and is the only training
required.91 Note that in this six point list, trauma-informed
decision making is glaringly absent. This is the first example to
support the thesis of this op-ed: that the American asylum
system is set up to fail those most in need of its assistance. The
following section will explore this as well as other areas ripe
for discriminatory practices.

IV. Successes and Failures

USCIS policy is that asylum applicants are eligible to
apply for a work permit six months after submitting their
application.92 That is because all asylum applications are
supposed to be adjudicated by 180 days after the application is
filed. However, it has been true for a long time that this does

92 INA § 208(d)(2).
91 “Asylum Division Training Programs,” 2016.
90 “Asylum Division Training Programs,” 2016.

41



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

not happen. In my experience the applicant might receive an
interview notice in that amount of time, but almost certainly
will not have completed the interview itself. If, during those six
months, the applicant requests to reschedule the date of their
interview, moves and must transfer their case to a different
asylum office, etc., the six month timer pauses. Once this
happens, the applicant must wait for USCIS to reschedule,
which does not happen quickly, for the timer to resume. This is
additional time that an individual cannot legally work, nor
drive, which are two serious impediments to one’s quality of
life in the United States.

Of recent concern is the adjustments to the asylum
process proposed by President Biden. To combat the current
backlog, Biden is attempting to alter the process so that once an
individual is inspected at the border they will be interviewed
within five weeks of their arrival. This presumes that all
individuals inspected are given an opportunity to declare intent
to apply for asylum and receive a credible fear interview.
Never, in my over three years of casework and intakes, have I
met an individual who has received a credible fear interview.
This is bad enough in the current system, so how could this
proposed solution to the backlog actually function if (1) recent
arrivals are unaware of their options in terms of status, and (2)
even when informed, individuals are not given the opportunity
to declare their intention to apply for asylum? Frankly, this new
rule could only have been suggested and approved by a group
of people with the most basic knowledge of the system. It
certainly would not be supported by anyone who actually
understands the flaws in the system. Given the history of
discrimination in the immigration system, to assume ignorance
is to give the benefit of the doubt.

I would now like to address the soft-skills and training
which are sorely lacking throughout the system. As briefly
mentioned before, all levels of the asylum process suffer from
a core lack of understanding of the symptoms of trauma. From

42



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

asylum officers conducting interviews to judges in trials,
asylum seekers are mistreated in countless ways by countless
bureaucrats in their effort to receive asylum due to a lack of
training on a condition which is effectively a prerequisite to
enter the asylum system. Asylum seekers face both first- and
second-hand trauma in their country of origin, and may
experience traumatic events in the process of coming to the
U.S. as well. If an individual has faced past persecution—been
tortured by their government’s security forces, targeted by a
mob for their sexuality, discriminated against due to their
ethnic group—they will inherently have gone through
traumatic experiences. These traumatic experiences are the
basis of an asylum claim. So why, when memory difficulty is
one of the main symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD), do those who assess asylum applicants treat this
symptom as an indication that the individual is not telling the
truth?

A. Hypothetical Example

Let us work with an example to illustrate the gross
irresponsibility of this situation. Say an immigration
caseworker is working with an asylum seeker who is an ethnic
Tigrayan from Ethiopia. Over the course of four months they
work together, building trust and improving the client’s
understanding of the asylum process, and putting together the
asylum application. During this time, as the client comes to
trust their caseworker they begin to open up about the fear they
experienced day to day in their country of origin. The client
recounts how they discovered that their family members in the
big cities and in the country alike were disappearing, and how
they still don’t know if their family remaining in Ethiopia is
alive nor if they are alive or safe.

The client receives a notice stating her interview date
will be in six months; although this is unlikely now, for a time

43



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

it was policy to take the most recently submitted cases first
rather than working on the backlog. As a team, we spend these
six months doing interview preparation and connecting our
client to other organizations which can assist them with
housing, food, health insurance, and transportation since they
cannot work or drive. We prepare the client for all types of
interviewers: an insensitive one who will ask direct and
probing questions, one who wants to believe you but will still
need to convince their supervisor, one who has been
interviewing Tigrayans for a week straight and doesn’t think
that many people could have come here so they must all be
lying, and many more. The anticipation builds up for the client
over this time, so when the date of the interview comes, they
are prepared, but understandably nervous.

The day of the interview the client and representative
are taken to the office of the asylum officer. There, credentials
are presented, and the officer hasn’t heard of an accredited
representative before and needs to check with their
supervisor.93 Half an hour later the officer returns and says they
can continue with the interview. At this time the officer may be
reviewing the filing package for the first time; if not, they have
probably scanned it to get the gist of the client’s story. We
never assume that the asylum officer has read the whole thing
because, as far as we know, they almost never do. The officer
begins by asking some questions from the application
itself—form I-589—such as the client’s full name, date of
birth, the last time they entered the US, their current address,
etc.

Once they get through some basic biographical
information, the officer will move on to questions about the
individual’s claim. This may take many forms, but officers will
often focus on the past persecution and why the individual

93 I would like to note that this actually happened to a colleague, although
the R&A program was established in 2003.

44



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

believes they will be persecuted going forward. Effectively, the
officer is trying to establish whether or not the applicant has a
credible fear of returning to their country of origin. Remember
that at this point the client has been in the US for almost a year,
so they are at least that length of time removed from the events
that caused them to flee their country and seek asylum in the
first place.

Fortunately, the client in this hypothetical has seen
mental health counselors so they are able to remember much of
what happened and know how to go about answering the
questions because of all the preparation we did.94 However, the
client is nervous and in the process of explaining what
happened to them they misspeak and say June instead of July.
They just remembered that they were persecuted in the
summer, but through affidavits of support and working through
the timeline of events, we figured out as a team that the event
happened in July. The asylum officer notices this and chooses
not to try to correct her, noting it as an inconsistency in their
story.

The interview lasts about four hours in which the client
makes a couple other minor mistakes, including saying that a
scar is on her left shoulder instead of her right, which is what
the doctor she saw in the United States had written in their
affidavit of support. The client doesn’t cry or express much
emotion at all during the interview. The asylum officer notices
this and thinks it is strange. This makes the officer suspect that
this was a canned story the applicant was told to tell: how else
could they have gotten through it without crying or pausing?
This would also explain why they forgot a couple facts such as
notable dates. The story also sounds quite similar to the story
of an applicant the officer interviewed yesterday. In fact, the

94 Please note that many are unable to seek mental health treatment under
these circumstances due to financial reasons, lack of transportation, and
numerous other blocks to access.

45



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

officer had heard the story over and over. How could it be that
so many people have had such similar experiences?95

The answer is obvious to us as the people who work
with these waves of refugees resulting from conflict or
discrimination. People have the same stories because
persecution is often systematic. In fact, in order to prove that
the client faces future persecution it would have to be
systematic. Otherwise, it would be a one-off instance and the
individual would not qualify for asylum. Additionally, memory
loss and emotional numbness are known within medical circles
to be a common symptom of PTSD. Exacerbators of symptoms
like these include stress and exposure to reminders of the
traumatic event.96 Why, when PTSD occurs in 6 of every 100
American adults, is this not accounted for in a system which
deals exclusively with victims of traumatic events?97

An additional complicating factor not incorporated into
this scenario is the need for translation. Regardless of the ease
of finding a translator for different languages and dialects,
translation can put non-native English speakers at a
disadvantage. The asylum interview is extremely personal. The
officer takes all aspects of the meeting into account from body
language to file size. There is value in hearing an individual’s
story from their own mouth. Another concern is the quality of
the translation. This is of greater concern for less common
languages or instances where an individual’s native language is
creole,98 but since there is no common metric or certification of
translation abilities, it is difficult for representatives and
asylum officers to assess the accuracy of the translation.
Asylum officers understandably take translators at their word,
assuming that they repeat close to exactly what the applicant

98 Creole is a combination of two languages.
97 “PTSD,” 2022.
96 Mayo Clinic, “Post-traumatic stress disorder.”

95 The sentiments ascribed to the officer in this scenario are drawn from
officer interviews conducted in the movie Well Founded Fear (2000).

46



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

says. However, this is often not the case. It may be difficult or
impossible to translate exactly, and some nuance of the
applicant’s statements may be lost to translation, leaving the
asylum officer without a full understanding, which then may
count against the applicant in the officer’s decision. Another
concern is if a translator misspeaks or misunderstands and
restates something incorrectly, as this may also count against
the client as an inconsistency.

At this point, we turn to the actual decision process
after the interview has finished. There is not much publicly
available information on this, but what we do know is that
officers must justify a positive decision to their supervisor.
Note here: they must justify positive decisions, not a decision
to deny asylum. This means that even if an asylum officer or
supervisor is educated about the effects of trauma, or is willing
to overlook some mistakes, one must convince the other to do
the same. This is a massive barrier to positive outcomes for two
populations in particular: non-native English speakers and
sufferers of PTSD. Keeping in mind that asylum seekers are
always both from another country and have suffered
persecution, those two populations are not insignificant, and
these issues affect thousands of lives.

V. Conclusion and Resource Suggestions

So how might we improve these inequalities? There are
so many different, yet effective, ways to improve this system
that it is hard to know where to begin. In terms of the interview
process, guaranteeing representation, high quality translation,
and mandatory trauma training among officials would go a
long way. But covered in this article are just a few parts of a
years-long process in which asylum seekers are disadvantaged
at every turn. Without a work permit, how can an asylum
seeker make money to pay an attorney to put together a

47



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

complete asylum filing, let alone feed themselves and their
family, pay rent, and more? Without representation, how can
individuals be expected to put together an asylum application
based on legal precedent and with in-depth research to
establish their claim? I leave you with just these questions to
stand in for the innumerable others which would point out the
countless flaws and inequalities inherent to the current asylum
process as it stands. Unfortunately, at this time, it seems as
though obstacles will only be increased for those seeking safety
and security in the United States in the near future.

In the spirit of hope, I would like to make three
suggestions to readers who hopefully feel as indignant as I and
other immigrant advocates do with this knowledge. The first is
to watch the documentary Well Founded Fear and encourage
others to as well. Although it is pre-9/11, and the asylum
process has undergone significant change since then, it is the
only real look that lay people get into the inner workings of an
asylum office. At the organization I was trained by and
volunteer for, all trainees must watch this movie to gain the
perspective necessary to be cynical enough about the system to
be able to put together an effective asylum application.

The second is specific to a certain region. The
University of Maine School of Law, the American Civil
Liberties Union, and the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project
worked together to publish a report in March 2022 detailing
problematic policies and failures that occur in the Boston
Asylum Office. The Boston Asylum Office serves all of
Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island and
the report supports much of what is presented in this article
using interviews and a massive Freedom of Information Act
release of USCIS documentation from the Boston Asylum
Office. The report is extremely well written and has created a
political onus to reform performance at this office.

The third is to support pro-bono immigration law
clinics and organizations, in addition to local organizations that

48



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

work to help individuals struggling with food insecurity,
housing, healthcare access, etc. If the government won’t
provide the services necessary to allow people to survive in the
United States, we can try to fill that gap. Some may say that
filling that gap only means that the government won’t see the
need to step in, but to that I ask how many times they have
received a phone call from a recent immigrant struggling to
feed their family who doesn’t know what their status is or how
to move forward. Why should those fleeing conflict and
persecution be punished for our shortcomings as voters? If
America wants to continue to consider itself to be the best of
the best, let’s make it so for our most vulnerable populations.

49



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

Bibliography

“A Mounting Asylum Backlog and Growing Wait Times.”
TRAC Immigration, 22 Dec. 2021,
https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/672/.

“Asylum Denial Rates Continue to Climb.” TRAC
Immigration, 28 Oct. 2020,
https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/630/.

“Asylum Division Training Programs | USCIS.” U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, 19 Dec. 2016,
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asy
lum/asylum/asylum-division-training-programs.

Baugh, Ryan. “Fiscal Year 2020 Refugees and Asylees
Annual Flow Report.” Office of Immigration
Statistics, 8 Mar. 2022.

“Refugees and Asylees: 2019 Annual Flow Report.”
Office of Immigration Statistics, Sept. 2020. Zotero,
https://cis.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/refugee_and
_asylee_2019.pdf.

Gendelman, Rebecca. “Inadequate Access to Legal
Representation, Rushed Timelines Impede
Meaningful Opportunity to Seek Asylum Under New
Asylum Processing Rule.” Human Rights First, 14
Sept. 2022,
https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/inadequate-access-
to-legal-representation-rushed-timelines-impede-mea
ningful-opportunity-to-seek-asylum-under-new-asylu
m-processing-rule/.

Gross, Daniel A. “The U.S. Government Turned Away
Thousands of Jewish Refugees, Fearing That They
Were Nazi Spies.” Smithsonian Magazine, 18 Nov.
2015,
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-governm
ent-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-t
hey-were-nazi-spies-180957324/.

50



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

“Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).” Mayo Clinic,
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/post-t
raumatic-stress-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20355
967. Accessed 19 Dec. 2022.

“PTSD: National Center for PTSD.” U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, 29 Aug. 2022,
https://www.ptsd.va.gov/understand/common/commo
n_adults.asp.

“Questions and Answers: Credible Fear Screening”
USCIS. 31 May 2022,
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asy
lum/asylum/questions-and-answers-credible-fear-scre
ening.

Refugee and Human Rights Clinic, et al. “Lives in Limbo:
How the Boston Asylum Office Fails Asylum
Seekers.” Mar. 2022, p. 31,
https://mainelaw.maine.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/
1/Lives-in-Limbo-How-the-Boston-Asylum-Office-Fa
ils-Asylum-Seekers-FINAL-1.pdf.

“States Parties to the 1951 Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol.” UNHCR,
Apr. 2015,
https://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0
d63.pdf.

“Table 15. Refugee Arrivals by Relationship to Principal
Applicant and Sex, Age, and Marital Status: Fiscal
Year 2019 | Homeland Security.” Department of
Homeland Security, 14 Dec. 2022,
https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/
2019/table15.

“Table 16. Individuals Granted Asylum Affirmatively or
Defensively: Fiscal Years 1990 to 2019 | Homeland
Security.” Department of Homeland Security, 14 Dec.
2022,

51



Brandeis University Law Journal Fall 2022, Volume 10, Issue 1

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/
2019/table16.

“The Constitution in the 100-Mile Border Zone.” ACLU,
2022,
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-bord
er-zone.

The UN General Assembly. “Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees.” Resolution 2198, 16 Dec. 1966,
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/ins
truments/protocol-relating-status-refugees.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “The
1951 Refugee Convention.” UNHCR USA, 2022,
https://www.unhcr.org/1951-refugee-convention.html.

Cases Cited
Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893).

Codes Cited
8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(a)(4).
8 U.S. Code § 1362 - Right to counsel.
INA § 208(d)(2).

52


