The 180-day Asylum EAD Clock (Part: 2) Read part one here What happens to the clock if an applicant misses his or her asylum interview? After an affirmative asylum applicant misses her scheduled interview, the asylum office will mail a “failure to appear” warning letter, advising the applicant of the procedural steps the applicant must take within 45 days to establish “good cause” for missing the interview. If the applicant responds within 45 days and demonstrates “good cause,” the asylum office will treat the response as a request to reschedule the interview and the clock will restart on the date of the rescheduled interview.  If the applicant does not respond within 45 days or fails to establish good cause, USCIS will send the applicant a “Referral Notice for Failure to Appear” and charging documents and will refer the applicant to immigration court. The notice will also explain the procedures for establishing “exceptional circumstances” for missing the interview. If the applicant responds and establishes that exceptional circumstances exist, the asylum office will issue a determination letter to the applicant and her attorney of record and provide notice to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Chief Counsel of the determination. The applicant can then request that ICE join in a joint motion to terminate immigration proceedings and if the immigration judge grants the motion, the asylum office will reopen the asylum application. The asylum clock will then restart on the date the applicant appears for a rescheduled interview with the asylum office. How is the 180-day waiting period calculated for applications filed with the Immigration Court? The clock starts when the Immigration Court receives the complete Asylum application at the Court’s window whether filed in person or by mail. What will cause the 180-day Asylum EAD Clock to stop with the Immigration Court? Like applications filed with USCIS, any delays caused by the applying noncitizen. Examples of delays caused by an applicant that can stop the Clock include: The applicant asks for a continuance to seek an attorney. The applicant asks for time to prepare. The applicant declines an expedited hearing if when one is offered by the judge. The applicant requests that the case be administratively closed. The clock resumes at the next hearing assuming that the applicant does not cause another delay. If the applicant files a motion to change venue or for a continuance, the clock stops when the motion is granted and resumes on the next hearing date assuming the applicant does not cause another delay. Asylum Applications treated as Expedited Cases In cases where an applicant filed the application with the Immigration Court, the Court seeks to adjudicate the case within 180 days subject to the Court’s availability. If the Court’s schedule permits, the Court will offer a final hearing within 180 days of filing. If the applicant declines to have the final hearing within the 180 days, this will also cause the clock to stop. If the Court cannot offer a final hearing date within

The 180-day Asylum EAD Clock (Part: 1) The “180-day Asylum EAD Clock” is a crucial measure used to determine eligibility for employment authorization of asylum seekers in the United States. It tracks the time frame during which their asylum application is under review with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum office or the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The USCIS service centers handle the adjudication of the Form 1-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and rely on the 180-day Asylum EAD Clock to determine if an applicant is eligible for employment authorization. For individuals who filed for asylum on or after January 4, 1995, the wait time before filing the Form 1-765 is 150 days. USCIS cannot grant employment authorization until an additional 30 days have elapsed, resulting in a total waiting period of 180 days. It is essential to note that the 180-day Asylum EAD Clock does not account for any delays that applicants may cause or request while their applications are under review with an asylum office or immigration court. Asylum Clock Settlement B.H., et al. v. USCIS, et al, also known as the ABT asylum clock lawsuit is a lawsuit that challenged the way that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and EOIR interpreted rules regarding eligibility for employment authorization during the asylum application process. The case was filed in district court in Seattle, Washington, and it resulted in a settlement that addresses five issues. Prior to the settlement:  Asylum applications for individuals in removal proceedings were not considered “filed” for EAD purposes unless they were filed at a hearing with the immigration judge.  Attorneys and pro se applicants who declined an expedited merits hearing stopped the asylum clock from accruing time. However, expedited hearing dates often did not allow attorneys or pro se applicants adequate time to prepare for the merits hearing.  Cases that were appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and subsequently remanded to the immigration judge were not eligible to have the asylum clock started or restarted.  There was not a clear procedure to recapture a missed asylum office interview at the asylum office.  Asylum applicants were not provided notice of the way in which the asylum clock worked and the actions that could result in stopping the clock.  The settlement addresses each of these issues. Is there any difference between filing the application with USCIS compared to filing with an Immigration Court? In both situations, the main issue to be aware of are delays caused by the noncitizen applicant. If there is a delay caused by an applicant, this could potentially stop the counting of days towards the 180-day period. Reasons for potential delays differ between cases filed with USCIS and cases filed with the Immigration Court. What will cause the 180-day Asylum EAD Clock to start? For asylum applications first filed with an asylum office, USCIS calculates the 180-day Asylum EAD Clock starting on the date that a complete asylum application is received by USCIS, in the manner

Termination of Asylum (Part: 2) Read part one here Standards of Proof relating to Revocation/Termination of Asylum Status A Notice of Intent to Terminate (NOIT), listing the ground(s) for an intended termination and also containing a summary of the evidence supporting the ground(s) must be issued to an asylee before asylum can be terminated.  An Asylum Officer must establish a prima facie case supporting termination to issue a NOIT.  To terminate asylee status, USCIS must establish one or more of the termination grounds in 8 C.F.R. 208.24 by a “preponderance of the evidence”. The burden of proof is information that, on its face, indicates that asylum termination may be appropriate. You do not need the higher level of evidence required to terminate asylee status. Subsequent to the issuance of an NOIT, further information that may come to the attention of the Asylum Office may lead to a finding that there is insufficient evidence to meet the preponderance of the evidence standards required for termination of asylee status. Where information does not meet the level required which is the level of a prima facie case in support of termination, then Asylum Office may then initiate a voluntary interview with the asylee. The Asylum Office may coordinate with ICE Investigations, Office of Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) where the asylee fails to cooperate.  Where overseas information is involved, HQASM may also be called upon to gather/provide further information. (VERIFY) Procedure for Terminating Asylum Granted by USCIS Asylum Approval must be issued before termination proceedings may be initiated. Where asylum has been granted by EOIR, the Asylum Office does not have jurisdiction to terminate asylum. EOIR Procedures for Terminating Asylum Asylum or Withholding status must first be terminated before the person can be removed from US – 8 CFR 208.22 Scenarios for EOIR Termination If IJ granted asylum or w/h – process is initiated with Motion to Reopen. If IJ granted and case is pending at BIA, process is initiated with Motion to Remand. If DHS granted asylum, IJ may terminate grant after individual has been served with Notice of Intent to Terminate and Notice to Appear. Motion to Reopen Must meet time (90 days) and numeric (1) limitations. Exceptions:  Fraud in the original proceeding  Crime that would support a motion to terminate asylum. EOIR: Burden of Proof If fraud, must show that asylum applicant knew the statement or document was fraudulent at the time it was submitted to the IJ. See Ntangsi v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (8th Cir. 2007)

Termination of Asylum (Part: 1) Grounds of Revocation/Termination of Asylum and Withholding of Removal Pursuant to INA 208(c)(2) and the regulations, a person granted asylum may have his asylum or withholding of removal revoked under certain circumstances by the AO, 8 C.F.R. 208.24(a) & (b), 1208.24(a) & (b), or the IJ. 8 C.F.R. 1208.28(f), 1208.24(f). When may Asylee/Withholding status be lost? Asylee status may be lost in the following circumstances:  Where there is fraud in the application,  The application is filed after April 1, 1997 and the person meets one of the categories of ineligibility specified in INA s208(c)(2) or  The application was filed before April 1, 1997 and the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear because there are changed conditions in the country of origin or the alien has committed any act that would have been grounds for a mandatory denial of asylum under 8 C.F.R. 208.13(c)(2). Application filed on or after April 1, 1997 The Asylum Office initiates a proceeding to terminate asylum status granted by USCIS when prima facie evidence indicates that at least one (1) of the following circumstances is present:  There is a showing of fraud in the alien’s application such that he or she was not eligible for asylum at the time it was granted.  As to an application filed on or after April 1, 1997, one or more of the conditions described in Section 208(c)(2) of the INA exist, summarized below:  The alien no longer meets the definition of a refugee due to a fundamental change in circumstances. The alien is a persecutor, danger to the security of the U.S., described in terrorist grounds of inadmissibility, or firmly resettled in another country or The alien was convicted of a particularly serious crime or there are serious reasons to believe the alien committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the U.S.  The alien may be removed pursuant to a safe third country agreement. The alien voluntarily re-availed him or herself of the protection of the country of feared persecution by returning to such country with the reasonable possibility of obtaining or having obtained permanent resident status with the same rights and obligations of other permanent residents of the country;  The alien has acquired a new nationality and enjoys the protection of that country. Application filed before April 1, 1997 As to an application filed before April 1, 1997, the alien no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution due to a change of country conditions in the alien’s country of nationality or last habitual residence, or the alien has committed any act that would have been grounds for a mandatory denial of asylum under 8 C.F.R. 208.13(c)(2), summarized below:  The alien was convicted of a particularly serious crime. The alien was firmly resettled in another country.  The alien is a danger to national security.  The alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony.  The alien order, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in persecution of others on account of one or more of the five