Oral Argument Federal Appeal: U.S. Asylees’ Rights to Judicial Review

In Nijar v. Holder, Jaspreet Singh, ICAAD’s Director of Policy and Advocacy successfully argued, on appeal from the BIA, that termination of asylum by an asylum officer must be subject to judicial review by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, as a neutral adjudicator and as required by the plain language of the statute. Rather than arguing that the regulation was ultra vires, counsel agreed with the DHS’ right to interview asylees suspected of fraud, but that any determination made by an asylum officer be reviewable by an Immigration Judge and appealable.

Under US law, which is in large part consistent with international law obligations on the rights of asylees, a grant of asylum bestows many rights upon the asylee, including the ability to apply for permanent status. DHS’ previous standard of simply being able to terminate grants of asylum without judicial review has undoubtedly severely curtailed the rights of those who have lawfully sought refuge having been placed in removal proceedings based on an asylum officer’s determination. The court’s opinion guarantees judicial review for these determinations within the Ninth Circuit.

Read the court’s opinion here.