From Persecution to Prison - Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of ...

II. Ensure Adequate Safeguards At Points Of Entry To Protect The Rights OfAsylum SeekersAs evidenced by the findings of this study, asylum seekers may not bereceiving adequate information and explanation of their right to asylumupon arrival in the US, and may not be treated in a humane and respectfulmanner. Many asylum seekers have fled persecution at the hands of governmentofficials in their homelands and it is not surprising that they oftendo not have proper documentation. Yet, under the expedited removalprocess, asylum seekers face disbelieving and even hostile immigrationofficials, the threat of immediate deportation, shackling for hours, and ifnot deportation, then imprisonment. Expedited removal permits immigrationenforcement officials to be judge and jury of an asylum seeker’s initialarticulation of her case. They can order deportation, a power previouslyentrusted to immigration judges. Expedited removal diminishes accountabilityand is inconsistent with due process standards.Initial interviews at airports, during which asylum seekers are expectedto recount highly personal and traumatic matters, are often conducted atopen counters without privacy. Asylum seekers sometimes cannot communicatewith immigration officers, as adequate interpreter services are notalways provided. Regardless of language, many asylum seekers are eithernot informed or do not understand their right to asylum. Finally, many donot understand what is happening to them when they are shackled at theairport, or when they are taken to detention. For survivors of torture andother survivors of trauma already victimized by government agents, thisinitial encounter with US government officials can be retraumatizing.Reform Expedited Removal and Restore Due Process StandardsDeportation decisions should be entrusted to immigration judges or atleast to a corps of specially trained officers, such as asylum officers, andnot the enforcement officials who currently make these decisions. Finally,DHS should allow regular, systematic monitoring of immigration proceduresat points of entry to the US by independent, non-governmentalagencies. Preferably, Expedited Removal should be applied only in theevent of immigration emergencies.Require Interviews with Potential Asylum Seekers to be Conductedby Specially Trained OfficersDHS should have a corps of specially trained officers stationed at ports ofentry to conduct interviews with potential asylum seekers. If not AsylumOfficers, then the interviews should be conducted by other officers trained inskills approximating those of Asylum Officers. Fundamentally, DHS needsto acknowledge that these specially trained officers’ function is one ofrefugee protection and monitoring, not enforcement, and educate officers toCONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 187