A Glimpse into the US Immigration Court Through an Afghan Man’s Case

An Afghan university professor, Mohammad, taught human rights courses before fleeing to the United States. As a member of the Hazara minority, he faced constant persecution. 

Mohammad said the Taliban were after him. The Taliban recaptured power in Afghanistan in 2021 and re-imposed their extreme Sunni Islam tenets. 

Mohammad’s Journey to the US and Asylum-Seeking Process

Mohammad entered the US through the Texas border in April 2022. He surrendered to law enforcement agents who detained him. A hearing took place through a video conference after one year. 

Despite only speaking Farsi, Mohammad did not bother engaging a legal representative. He thought the details of his asylum claim would vindicate him. 

A court interpreter in another location translated his words. He noted that he struggled to express himself due to fear for his life because he sustained injuries in a 2016 suicide bombing incident. 

After the about three-hour hearing, the judge denied Mohammad asylum. The Afghan man later shockingly learned that he had waived his right to appeal during the hearing. Mohammad felt dejected due to the “non-application of the law.”

It is crucial to note that Mohammad has withheld his last name out of fear of attacks on family members still in Afghanistan.

An Insight into the US Immigration Court System

Mohammad’s issue allows stakeholders and analysts to comprehensively dissect the opaque and overburdened US immigration court system. Judges are often under pressure to act promptly with discretion, and hearings are usually closed. The courts also do not make transcripts available to the public. 

Due to an unprecedented influx of migrants through the U.S.-Mexico border, the courts now have a backlog of over two million cases. There is no denying that the system is overwhelmed. 

Mona Iman, a lawyer with Human Rights First, now represents Mohammad, who is at the Prairieland Detention Center in Texas. Mohammad’s hearing transcript that his attorney made available indicates an asylum seeker poorly prepared to represent himself. It clearly shows he did not understand what was going on.

A New Twist to Mohammad’s Case

Fortunately, Iman has won Mohammad a new hearing. However, another judge has taken over the case. Experts have said that this is a rare second chance for asylum matters.

Another light of hope shone through Mohammad’s mind when the Biden-led administration announced its intention to offer temporary legal status to Afghan migrants who have been in the US for over 12 months. 

Mohammad’s attorney believes his client is qualified for this status and will apply formally. However, Mohammad feared that the authorities could deport him from his detention center. 

The Evidence and Counter-Arguments

Mohammad submitted pictures of his wounds from the 2016 suicide bombing incident where hundreds of people lost their lives. The incident happened during a peaceful protest of mostly Hazaras. The defendant also submitted threatening letters from the Taliban to the court. 

Mohammad also alleged that militants hit him with sticks as he made his way out of the university and shot at him in 2021. He presented medical records to back up his claim. 

However, the authorities claimed that the defendant encouraged migration to the United States through his social media handles. They also claimed he manipulated figures, dates, and other facts about his past. Furthermore, the government opined that Mohammad had relatives in South America, Europe, and other places where he could comfortably stay.

When deciding the matter, Judge Allan John-Baptiste ruled that the threats did not indicate the Afghan man could still be at risk, citing that no one had harmed his wife and children since he fled. 

Mohammad wanted to argue his case further, but Judge John-Baptiste said the evidentiary phase was over. He inquired if the defendant would appeal or waive his right to appeal. 

The Afghan man definitely described his claim, but the judge hammered on the fact that he had already decided. The defendant said if John-Baptiste was going to disregard the troubling situation in Afghanistan, an appeal was needless. 

However, the judge said he had considered all indexes, noting that neither the suicide bomber nor the gunshot hit him. He furthered that the injuries Mohammad sustained were not equivalent to persecution. 

The Afghan man countered that his family was living in hiding, and his wife had to conceal her identity with a burqa. The judge asked if Mohammed would appeal, but he blew off the blank check. John-Baptiste reminded the defendant that his non-acceptance of the appeal was final, and he accepted the decision.

Mohammad later inquired if he could return to the US legally. John-Baptiste said voluntary departure could allow Mohammad to return legally in less than ten years, but the Afghan man did not qualify.

However, Mohammad said he did not fully understand what was happening in the courtroom. Other detainees informed him he only had one month to appeal the decision. 

What the Experts Have to Say

Jeffrey Chase, a retired immigration judge, was surprised that Judge John-Baptiste waived the Afghan man’s right to appeal. He was even more surprised that the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the ruling. 

According to Chase, case law allows the authorities to protect individuals belonging to a group long persecuted in their country, even if the person cannot establish specific threats. However, another former immigration judge, Andrew Arthur, supported John-Baptiste’s ruling. 

Arthur argued that the respondent was aware of everything in the courtroom and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. However, Chase said it seemed the judge rushed the hearing, probably due to the backlog of cases.

Considering the Figures

In 2022, 600 immigration judges denied 63 percent of cases. However, individual denial rates wildly differ. For instance, while a San Francisco judge denied only one percent of his 108 cases, a Houston judge denied all 105 cases he handled. 

Judge John-Baptiste had a 72% denial rate among the 114 cases he handled that year. 

Final Thoughts

“Migration is a delicate issue in the US, with political, social, and economic undertones. The laws guiding it are complex and evolve constantly. That is why you need an expert if you have any migration-related issue,” says immigration law attorney Zaira Solano from Solano Law Firm.

An immigration law attorney knows the regulations and how to explore them in your defense. Mohammad’s lawyer said his case would not have taken a wrong turn if he had engaged an attorney from the onset. 

Although the system is intended to protect vulnerable individuals, authorities may sometimes take advantage of applicants’ vulnerabilities. Thus, it is crucial to engage an immigration law attorney for your matter.