GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE EXPEDITED REMOVAL STUDY RELEASED Among the more controversial programs enacted by the 1996 immigration laws is the expedited removal process. Expedited removal allows an immigration officer at a port of entry to order someone who has entered without proper documents deported if they do not demonstrate a credible fear of persecution. At the initial inspection, if the alien expresses fear, they are to be given a credible fear interview, at which point they must demonstrate their eligibility for asylum or face deportation.
The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 charged the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, to examine the expedited removal process. The most recent annual report was released last week and contains much that is critical of the INS and the expedited removal process. The report focuses primarily on management of the credible fear determination process and on analyzing the reasons why aliens who were referred to a hearing before an Immigration Judge failed to appear.
The study gathered information from four main ports of entry – the Los Angeles International Airport, the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Airport in New York City, the Miami International Airport, and the San Ysidro port of entry near San Diego. Between them, these ports handled about 50 percent of all expedited removal cases. The GAO randomly selected 365 files from 47,791 expedited removal files at the four ports of entry for 1999.
The GAO found that by and large, all of the expedited removal requirements, including asking the alien if they feared being returned to their home country, review by a supervisor, and obtaining a signed statement from the alien, were being followed. One area in which there were problems was in dealing with aliens who withdraw their claim to fear persecution.
The INS did not require asylum officers to document the reason for the alien’s changed claim. Therefore, each office kept different amounts and types of documentation. Because there was no standard procedure, it was impossible for the GAO to determine whether some people who did face persecution in their home country were being returned. Following discussions with the GAO, asylum officers are now required to document the reasons for an alien’s withdrawal of a claim to fear persecution.
If the alien establishes a credible fear of persecution, they are given a removal hearing before an immigration judge at which point they can pursue an application for asylum. According to the GAO, between April 1, 1997 and September 30, 1999, 2,351 aliens were given removal hearings. However, 1,000, or nearly 42%, had failed to appear for the hearing, and were ordered deported without being able to present their asylum claim. To address this concern, the GAO recommends that the INS analyze the type of person who fails to appear for their removal hearing so that better decisions about who to release can be made, and that it develop better methods of keeping track of aliens with hearings so that they may receive proper notice of them.
The GAO report did not focus on what many view as the most fundamental flaw in the expedited removal process – the almost unlimited discretion it gives immigration officers. This has resulted in the deportation of US citizens. One such case occurred recently. Sharon McKnight, a mentally handicapped woman, was returning home after a trip to visit family in Jamaica. The immigration officer did not believe the passport she presented was hers, and she was detained in shackles until she was placed on a plane for Jamaica. Her mother came to the airport with McKnight’s birth certificate, but officials deemed it a fake and would not allow McKnight’s mother to see her. Only with the help of Rep. Michael Forbes (D-NY), was McKnight able to convince the INS that she is a US citizen. McKnight has filed a lawsuit against the INS seeking $8 million in damages.
The GAO report is available online at http://www.gao.gov/cgi-moses/getrpt?GGD-00-176. < Back | Next > Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk. | 
