“The standard for a credible fear of persecution should be raised and aligned to the standard for asylum.” (Common Defense, Dept. of Homeland Security, Page 180)
When someone feels forced to leave their home country due to dangerous conditions, they can apply for asylum in the U.S. “Credible fear” is an initial assessment by an asylum officer who determines whether an individual has a legitimate fear of persecution or torture. If they do, they can proceed to a full asylum hearing before an immigration judge. To be eligible for asylum, the individual must demonstrate “well-founded fear of persecution,” which is a higher standard than the “significant possibility” standard of the initial screening process. For more information about what the asylum application process looks like for immigrants, see this article.
The credible fear screening is a crucial part of the asylum process that aims to balance efficient processing with due process rights. Eliminating this screening will lead to the deportation of genuine asylum seekers, causing them harm and possibly death. For more information about the credible fear assessment and why it’s necessary, see this fact sheet.
“Order ICE to stop closing out pending immigration cases and apply the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as written by Congress.” (Common Defense, Dept. of Homeland Security, Page 141)
The policy they’re referring to here is known as administrative closure. Immigration is complex and there are often multiple time-consuming factors at play (adjustment of status, asylum, family-based petition) that may impact a person’s eligibility and court case. Due to the growing backlog of immigration cases (more than 2 million), administrative closure is used to help prioritize the most crucial cases that can be adjudicated quickly.
Though administrative closure has been used effectively since 1983, the Trump Administration ended it in 2018. Since then, the efficiency of immigration proceedings has plummeted, increasing the backlog of cases by over 250,000 in just one year.
The argument against administrative closure is that it doesn’t follow the Immigration and Nationality Act as written. This is true, however, administrative closure has been one of the only effective ways of making meaningful progress in immigration cases (per the National Association of Immigration Judges and Board of Immigration Appeals). Without it, our immigration caseload will continue to grow more unmanageable. Additionally, immigrants who are already struggling with complex legalese and major life upheavals will face delays and barriers accessing services to help them.
“Eliminate T and U visas. Victimization should not be a basis for an immigration benefit.” (Common Defense, Dept. of Homeland Security, Page 141)
T and U Visas protect victims of human trafficking, involuntary servitude, extortion, witness tampering, and other severe crimes. In all cases, victims must cooperate with law enforcement authorities to receive Visa benefits.
Eliminating these options would mean that traumatized victims would lose critical protection pathways, likely subjecting them to deportation and retraumatization. It would also hinder law enforcement efforts since victims have no incentive to cooperate.
“Repeal Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations.” (Common Defense, Dept. of Homeland Security, Page 145)
TPS is a form of humanitarian relief that is granted to eligible nationals of countries undergoing environmental disasters, armed conflicts, or extreme conditions that prevent their safe return. Beneficiaries are protected from deportation and can legally work in the United States. The current TPS designations shift frequently, but currently include countries like El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan.
Repealing TPS would profoundly impact hundreds of thousands of lives in immigrant and ethnic minority communities. They would likely face job loss, family separation, and potentially deportation. It would force them into an uncertain status, directly increasing economic instability for them (and their communities). If they were forced to return to their home countries, they would be thrown back into the crisis they were trying to escape from, potentially leading to harm or even death.
“End parole abuse by legislating specific parole standards.” (Common Defense, Dept. of Homeland Security, Page 146)
USCIS currently has parole standards as outlined here. Additionally, contained within that link is information about how CBP and ICE work with USCIS in terms of granting parole and each agency’s jurisdiction over parole requests. The policy called for in the Mandate already exists and is superfluous.
