Past Comments on Trump Regulations
On November 8, 2019, Immigration Equality submitted a public comment opposing the Department of Homeland Security’s proposed Rulemaking on the Removal of the 30-Day Processing Provision for Asylum Applicant-Related Form I-765 Employment Authorization Applications. Prior to the proposed rule, USCIS was required to adjudicate an asylum seeker’s work authorization (EAD) application within 30 days. The Proposed Rule eliminates the 30-day deadline without instating an alternative, making it more difficult for asylum seekers, including LGBTQ and HIV-positive applicants, to access work authorization. In the comment, ImEq explains that the proposed rule will restrict asylum seekers’ access to resources, including, housing, health care, social services and legal representation. Additionally, the proposed rule will be costly to the government and the overall economy without providing any real benefit. For these reasons, Immigration Equality opposed the proposed rule and strongly supports allowing asylum seeks to apply for EADs concurrently with their asylum application or, in the alternative, keeping the 30-day deadline in place. The proposed rule was finalized and went into effect August 21, 2020, but has been partially enjoined in Casa de Maryland v. Wolf.
On December 19, 2019, Immigration Equality submitted a public comment opposing an interim final rule that allows the U.S. to send individuals seeking asylum along the U.S./Mexico border to countries with which the United States has entered into so-called “Asylum Cooperative Agreements” (ACAs). Under this rule, individuals are prohibited from applying for asylum in the U.S. and will be removed to a third country if certain requirements are met. Namely: (1) the U.S. enters into an agreement with a country that is a “third country” for the asylum seeker; (2) the asylum seeker’s “life or freedom would not be threatened in that third country” on account of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group; and (3) the “third country provides [asylum seekers] removed there…’access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protections.’” The U.S. has reached agreements with Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. None of these countries are safe for LGBTQ and HIV-positive people, who face widespread persecution and abuse. For these reasons, Immigration Equality strongly opposed the interim final rule and recommended that any future cooperation agreements follow the Immigration and Nationality Act as well as international law.
On December 27, 2019, Immigration Equality submitted a comment in opposition to the new USCIS fee schedule. Under the fee schedule, for the first time ever, the United States will begin charging a fee of $50 dollars for affirmative asylum applications and a $490 fee for initial employment authorization documents (EADs) for asylum-seekers. USCIS has never charged a fee for either application before and neither fee is waivable for financial hardship. In addition, the fee schedule transfers $415.2 million in applicant fees to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) which is both improper and unconscionable as the Immigration and Nationality act requires those fees to be used to fund benefit adjudication of applications and petitions for benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act. For these reasons, Immigration Equality urged USCIS to withdraw the proposed Fee Schedule.
The fee schedule was finalized and was scheduled to go into effect on October 2, 2020, but was enjoined in federal court.
On January 13, 2019, Immigration Equality submitted a comment in opposition to the proposed rulemaking and Request for Comment on Asylum Application, Interview, and Employment Authorization for Applicants. The Proposed Rule increases the amount of time asylum seekers must wait to apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) from 150 days after filing an asylum application to 365 days after filing, among other changes. The Proposed Rule will also result in denial of EADs for many asylum seekers including: those who avail themselves of routine administrative processes or submit additional evidence; those with minor criminal charges that do not preclude a grant of asylum; and those who entered the US. without inspection. These changes will worsen the existing financial burden asylum seekers face while waiting for work authorization and reduce access to housing, food and medical care. For these reasons, Immigration Equality opposed the proposed rule and supports allowing asylum seekers to apply for EADs concurrently with their asylum applications or in the alternative maintaining the prior rules.
The proposed rule was finalized and went into effect August 25, 2020, but has been partially enjoined in Casa de Maryland v. Wolf.
On April 23, 2020, Immigration Equality submitted a comment opposing Suspension of Introduction of Persons Into United States from Designated Foreign Countries or Places for Public Health Purposes. The rule allows the U.S. government to expel immigrants including asylum-seekers from the U.S. under the guise of public health precautions. However, the rule is based on immigration status rather than COVID-19 exposure and is further based on the incorrect assumption that those coming into the U.S. must be detained in congregate settings. This rule puts LGBTQ asylum-seekers in grave danger and it violates both U.S. and international law. For these reasons, Immigration Equality opposed the proposed rule.
On July 15, 2020, Immigration Equality submitted a comment opposing a proposed rule that would gut the U.S. asylum law without Congressional approval and would result in LGBTQ and HIV positive asylum-seekers (and others) being deported to their countries of origin where they face assault, rape and murder on account on their sexual orientation, gender identity or HIV status. The proposed rule creates such broad exclusions for establishing persecution on account ofa protected ground that many LGBTQ/H asylum seekers would no longer qualify for asylum. The rule also prohibits evidence that is necessary for LGBTQ/H asylum seekers to prove their claims and creates discretionary factors so broad that they could be used to prohibit asylum claims altogether. Many of these changes are contrary to U.S. and international law. For these reasons, Immigration Equality strongly opposes the rule.
The final rule was published on December 10, but was enjoined in a lawsuit filed by Immigration Equality and others.
On August 10, 2020, Immigration Equality submitted a comment opposing a proposed rule which would bar asylum seekers from entering the United States purportedly because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Just as with the U.S.’s previous HIV ban, this rule will result in denial of relief to asylum applicants with meritorious claims, subjecting LGBTQ refugees to assault, mutilation, rape and death in their countries of origin, while not serving any public health interest. For these reasons, Immigration Equality opposes the proposed rule.
On September 25, 2020, Immigration Equality submitted a comment opposing Proposed Rules on Appellate Procedures and Decisional Finality in Immigration Proceedings. The rules limit the ability to remand cases for additional fact finding and incentivize judges to rush proceedings instead of fleshing out the facts. The rules also greatly limit the ability to grant motions to reopen as the Board will not be able to open cases sua sponte and applicants must motion to reopen within 90 days of a final order. The rules additionally prohibit judges from administratively closing cases to allow asylum seekers to pursue permanent relief that must be granted by USCIS. These changes will result in LGBTQ and HIV positive immigrants with meritorious claims being deported to their countries of origin where they face severe violence. For these reasons, Immigration Equality opposed this proposed rule. This rule became effective on January 15, 2021.
On October 23, 2020, Immigration Equality and Center Global, submitted a comment opposing the Department of Justice’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal. The proposed rule requires that asylum claims be adjudicated within 180 days, requires judges to reject applications for small technical errors, requires asylum seekers in asylum or withholding proceedings to submit applications within 15 days of their initial Master Calendar Hearing, and limits the ability of immigration judges to consider country condition evidence brought by asylum seekers while allowing the judges to introduce their own evidence. These changes result in serious due process concerns. Additionally, immigration judges will no longer be neutral adjudicators. For these reasons Immigration Equality and Center Global opposed the proposed rule.