Latest news with #RefugeeAct
San Francisco Chronicle
10-07-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Asylum-seekers wait on average 4½ years for their hearings. Now many fear ICE at the courthouse
In a windowless courtroom in Concord this May, an El Salvadoran man sat before an immigration judge and an attorney from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He had waited four years for a hearing on his application for asylum. In the days leading up to his day in court, the man told the Chronicle, he had felt sick with fear that he would be deported back to El Salvador, where he said he'd been terrorized by MS-13 gang members who killed six of his family members. Yet the man, whom the Chronicle granted anonymity to protect him from retaliation and to avoid jeopardizing his case, also faced another fear: He had heard stories in the news about asylum seekers getting arrested at their hearings, a Trump administration tactic to escalate the mass deportation of the estimated 11 million unauthorized migrants in the U.S. He knew he had to appear for his hearing if he wanted a chance at being granted asylum. A no-show would all but guarantee an order for his removal in absentia. But by going, he risked detention — and deportation. 'One feels the fear,' he told the Chronicle in Spanish. 'Nowadays, it seems that they don't care whether this person has a court date or if he has a permit to work. They don't care.' People who've waited years for their court date are now afraid to attend their hearings. 'I think people are just not here because they're scared,' said Judge Shira Levine as she ran through the list of no-shows at her San Francisco immigration court last month. Immigration courts, an arm of the Department of Justice once little known to most Americans, have been thrust into the spotlight since ICE officers began ramping up arrests of migrants at their hearings in a reversal of the Biden administration's practice. Meant to guarantee constitutional due process for people facing deportation, these courts are where migrants make their case against being removed from the U.S. Most people in the immigration court system are asylum seekers, who entered the U.S. through the asylum-seeking process established by Congress in the 1980 Refugee Act. Long before Donald Trump returned to office in January, U.S. immigration courts already suffered from myriad problems, including extraordinary backlogs, questions about their judicial independence and a widespread lack of legal representation for respondents. The backlog in the San Francisco court has quadrupled since 2015, a trend mirrored in courts across the country. The Chronicle analyzed Bay Area immigration court data and found that the median wait time for a Bay Area court judge to issue a decision on a case between 2019 and 2025 was four and a half years. Receiving a final decision after an appeal or stay can take years longer. The wait had grown since between 2014 and 2019, when it was roughly two years and four months, as the number of asylum seekers arriving in the U.S. reached record numbers while the number of immigration judges remained low — about 700 nationwide. Nearly 2.2 million asylum claims were pending in the nation's 72 immigration courts as of May 2025, according to data organization Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. For both the Trump administration — which is trying to deport undocumented immigrants as quickly as possible — and those immigrants, who generally are entitled to efficient and fair proceedings, that's a problem. 'It's difficult for people to be in that process of limbo for that long where they don't know what their outcome in their case is going to be,' said Milli Atkinson, legal director of the San Francisco Immigrant Legal Defense Collaborative. Kathryn Mattingly, spokesperson for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the official name for the U.S. immigration court system, said that reducing the immigration court backlog is 'one of the highest priorities' for the office. Mattingly pointed to federal data that showed the total pending caseload of immigration court cases has fallen by more than 100,000 cases for a second month in a row, largely due to a drop in number of new cases as fewer people have crossed the U.S.-Mexico southern border without authorization. During a prolonged wait, an asylum seeker's position may be weakened by changing circumstances: their abuser dies, their home country's conditions change, case law evolves, or their child ages out of certain protections. Moreover, 'it really delays people's ability to get on with their life, make decisions, plan, set down roots,' Atkinson said. The Fifth Amendment provides undocumented immigrants the right to a hearing in front of an immigration judge before they're deported, with limited exceptions, and the right to remain in the U.S. while their case is pending. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed migrants' right to due process. Yet, President Donald Trump and his allies have sought to bypass immigration courts, arguing that only Americans, not migrants, are entitled to due process. 'We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years,' Trump wrote on Truth Social in April. Trump has expanded expedited removal — deportation without a hearing — to anyone who can't prove they've been in the U.S. for at least two years. Under Biden, it was reserved for people arrested close to the border within two weeks of arriving illegally. ICE attorneys have also sought to get migrants' cases dismissed, stripping them of protections they had while their cases were pending, arresting them and placing them in expedited removal proceedings. That practice has been challenged in court with some success. A federal judge last week ordered that ICE release a Peruvian woman who was detained on July 3 in San Francisco after her asylum hearing, finding the government had weak reasons to detain her. Unlike in criminal proceedings, respondents in immigration court do not have a right to a lawyer paid for by the government. The Trump administration has further cut funding for legal aid to unaccompanied migrant children facing deportation. 'The asylum system is so complicated,' Atkinson said. 'Of all the things I help people apply for, asylum is the number one thing I would not do without an attorney.' In the two Bay Area courts — in San Francisco and Concord — people in about a third of decided cases had no attorney. In cases involving an asylum claim, that number drops to about 10% of cases. A person's odds of being granted asylum were significantly higher when they had a lawyer. San Francisco immigration courts have one of the highest rates of representation nationwide. But that has declined in recent years. Winning asylum is difficult — nearly impossible without an attorney. It involves proving that the asylum seeker was persecuted or has a fear of being persecuted if they return to their home country based on at least one of several protected categories, including race, religion or political opinion. From January 2014 to April 2025, about 30% of asylum claims in the Bay Area immigration courts were denied. An asylum hearing, being adversarial, is in many ways similar to a criminal trial. A government attorney seeks to cast doubt on an asylum seeker's testimony. Asylum seekers often must compile evidence to corroborate that they suffered persecution, including finding expert witnesses to attest to their injuries. In mid-June, a Honduran woman walked into San Francisco immigration court to testify about the domestic violence that led to her fleeing to the U.S. with one of her two sons and pregnant with a third. The woman had failed to apply for asylum within the one-year deadline after coming to the U.S. To qualify, she would have to prove to the judge that she had experienced extraordinary circumstances that prevented her from doing so. To strengthen the woman's case, her attorney prepared 200 pages of evidence about systemic violence against women in Honduras. 'He'd tell me I was a slut, a prostitute,' the woman testified in court in Spanish, breaking down into tears. He forced her to have sex and threw out her birth control, she said. The woman eventually managed to escape and crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in December 2022. Soon after arriving, while still pregnant, emergency gallbladder surgery delayed her filing for asylum. And before she could, her abusive ex came to the U.S., intent on finding her, she said. 'I'm afraid because of how the law stands now, he might be deported because he has no immigration case,' she said. At the end of the two-hour hearing, the judge, Shuting Chen, granted the woman asylum. Downstairs, on the street, the woman's attorney told her, 'We did it!' hugging her. 'That was real close.' The woman grinned tearfully, shivering in the wind, and said she could finally make her dream come true: to bring her third son, who was still in Honduras, to the U.S. Zhu, a Chinese Christian asylum seeker who asked to be identified by his last name only for the protection of his family in China, said the two and a half years he and his wife waited for an asylum hearing were 'torment,' he said in Mandarin. 'Everything was uncertain,' he said. 'But I had faith that everything was in God's hands.' Zhu had attended a house church in China, part of an informal Protestant movement deemed illegal by the Chinese Communist Party. Two prior churches he attended had been shut by the government. His former pastor was arrested. When his asylum hearing finally arrived this June, he testified how at a 2021 Christmas service he attended, Chinese police officers showed up, took down worshippers' names, and forbade them from praying and singing hymns. In 2022, police showed up at his workplace and required him to sign a document renouncing his faith in Christianity and disavowing church participation. He and his wife left China, intent on seeking religious asylum in the U.S. The couple paid an attorney $8,000 to represent them. The judge presiding over his case said that he had a well-founded fear of returning to China and granted him asylum. 'America's laws are fair, but right now, for asylum seekers, the problems are vast,' he said. For the El Salvadoran man, it was never a question that he'd attend his hearing. A member of the military, he and his family were targeted in retaliation for the government crackdown on gangs. For almost three hours during his May hearing, he recounted how on one night in 2015, MS-13 gang members appeared at his house and beat him in the head with a gun, leaving a scar that remains today. Four years later, gang members returned, threatening to kill him. He wept as he shared how his family had to flee by car that night, eventually arriving in the U.S. after two years on the road, when they were placed in removal proceedings. At the end of the hearing, they still hadn't finished, so the judge ordered the man to return in May 2026 for cross examination and a decision. He'd be expected to recall with accuracy what he'd said a year prior, or risk damaging his credibility, his attorney said. 'That's a huge due process concern,' said his attorney, who asked not to be named to protect her client's identity. 'There could be memory losses, particularly with trauma.' The man, on the other hand, was 'so happy,' he said. It meant he'd be allowed to remain at least another year. 'After everything I went through,' he said, 'even if they told me that I had to wait 20 years, that would be better because I don't know what the answer is going to be.'
IOL News
04-07-2025
- Health
- IOL News
‘You can't solve crime through illegal actions: Health Department on activists blocking foreigners
Clashes were previously seen at Kalafong Provincial Tertiary Hospital in Tshwane when police used stun grenades to disperse members of Operation Dudula who were vetting people entering the hospital. Image: Oupa Mokoena/Independent Media The national Department of Health has expressed concern over several vigilante groups intercepting foreign nationals, blocking them from accessing healthcare at public facilities. In an interview with IOL, spokesperson for the Department of Health, Foster Mohale said while the department does not condone illegal migration, the actions of the activist groups are concerning. 'We have noted with concern illegal actions around some parts of Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal, in which individuals and organised groups prevent healthcare users, especially illegal migrants from accessing health services,' said Mohale. 'We also condemn people who illegally cross the border into South Africa specifically to access healthcare services. 'We urge those with concerns about this societal problem to raise them within the confines of the law instead of taking the law into their own hands because you cannot solve crime through illegal activities which may end you in jail,' Mohale told IOL. Regarding the legal position of immigrants accessing healthcare in South Africa, Mohale said there are different legal frameworks relied on. "This is not only a violation of constitutional rights, especially Section 27, but also a number of legal prescripts, the National Health Act, the Refugee Act, Immigration Act. Section 27 of the South African Constitution guarantees that everyone has the right to access healthcare services, including reproductive healthcare, and that no one may be refused emergency medical treatment. "The National Health Act ensures access to primary healthcare services for all individuals in South Africa, regardless of immigration status. The Refugees Act protects the rights of refugees and asylum seekers to healthcare services, and prohibits denial of emergency medical care. On the Immigration Act, while healthcare facilities are permitted to inquire about legal status, this should not hinder the provision of necessary care, especially in emergencies," he said. Mohale said law enforcement agencies must act against anyone committing illegal actions. 'We are calling on law enforcement agencies to take firm action against those who interfere with access to healthcare and unlawfully obstruct our institutions,' said Mohale. 'We also call upon all residents to remain law-abiding and to express their concerns using the appropriate channels provided under our legal and democratic system. "South Africa is a democratic state governed by laws which must be respected by all,' he said. In 2022, IOL reported that chaos erupted outside Kalafong Provincial Tertiary Hospital in Tshwane when police fired rubber bullets and stun grenades, intervening in violent clashes between groups from the Economic Freedom Fighters and Operation Dudula. The two groups were feuding over whether undocumented foreigners should be able to access medical services at the hospital. Violent scenes of members of the two groups throwing stones and empty bottles at each other played out at the time then health minister, Dr Joe Phaahla, visited the facility to inspect the impact of the anti-foreigner protests on hospital operations.
eNCA
14-06-2025
- Politics
- eNCA
Passport fraud kingpin targeted in Hawks raid
DURBAN - Home Affairs' counter-corruption unit and the Hawks are conducting a raid on suspects behind the sale of fraudulent passports. WATCH | Discussion | Some sections of Refugee Act declared unconstitutional The main target is a kingpin believed to be a foreign national. Colonel Katlego Mogale stated that the operation is a joint initiative between the eerious corruption investigation and the department of Home Affairs. So far, 38 people have been arrested, and some of them have already been convicted. On Saturday morning, another operation was launched, resulting in the arrest of four more individuals. Authorities also confiscated 226 passports along with other documents belonging to the department of Home Affairs.
NDTV
06-05-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Fresh Blow To Trump Administration, Judge Orders To Admit 12,000 Refugees
A judge on Monday ordered President Donald Trump's administration to admit around 12,000 refugees into the United States, a blow to the government's efforts to re-shape America's immigration policy. The order clarifies the limits imposed by an appeals court ruling which allowed the Trump administration to suspend the refugee admissions system, but said it must admit people already granted refugee status with travel plans to the United States. The Trump administration argued at a hearing last week that it should only have to admit 160 refugees who were scheduled to travel within two weeks of an executive order in January halting the system. But US District Judge Jamal Whitehead overruled the claim on Monday, saying "the government's interpretation is, to put it mildly, 'interpretive jiggerypokery' of the highest order. "It requires not just reading between the lines" of the appeal decision "but hallucinating new text that simply is not there," Whitehead wrote in his order. Whitehead had originally blocked Trump's executive order halting refugee admissions, ruling in February that it likely violated the 1980 Refugee Act. But his decision was overruled by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals a month later. "Had the Ninth Circuit intended to impose a two-week limitation -- one that would reduce the protected population from about 12,000 to 160 individuals -- it would have done so explicitly," Whitehead wrote. "This Court will not entertain the government's result-oriented rewriting of a judicial order that clearly says what it says," he added. The lawsuit had been brought by Jewish refugee non-profit HIAS, Christian group Church World Service, Lutheran Community Services Northwest and a number of individuals. Those nonprofits said in their February lawsuit that several people who had been about to travel, having sold all their belongings in their own country, were abruptly left in limbo by Trump's order. Refugee resettlement had been one of the few legal routes to eventual US citizenship, and had been embraced by former president Joe Biden, who expanded eligibility for the program to include people affected by climate change. Trump's White House campaign was marked by vitriol about immigrants. He has also pushed a vigorous program of deportations, with highly publicized military flights taking handcuffed people to countries in Latin America.
New Indian Express
06-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Judge orders Trump to admit 12,000 refugees into US
WASHINGTON: A judge on Monday ordered President Donald Trump's administration to admit around 12,000 refugees into the United States, a blow to the government's efforts to re-shape America's immigration policy. The order clarifies the limits imposed by an appeals court ruling which allowed the Trump administration to suspend the refugee admissions system, but said it must admit people already granted refugee status with travel plans to the United States. The Trump administration argued at a hearing last week that it should only have to admit 160 refugees who were scheduled to travel within two weeks of an executive order in January halting the system. But US District Judge Jamal Whitehead overruled the claim on Monday, saying "the government's interpretation is, to put it mildly, 'interpretive jiggerypokery' of the highest order. "It requires not just reading between the lines" of the appeal decision "but hallucinating new text that simply is not there," Whitehead wrote in his order. Whitehead had originally blocked Trump's executive order halting refugee admissions, ruling in February that it likely violated the 1980 Refugee Act. But his decision was overruled by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals a month later.
