LCFS Refugee Service - Southeastern PA

"I knew his face. I were happy."

2006-10-09T15:20:26-04:00

"I knew his face." "It was like a dream." "I were happy." Emmanuel Comgbaye and his sister Obeyo are telling caseworker Yvonne Togbah how they felt the day the were reunited with their father in Philadelphia after being separated for six years.

Emmanuel now eleven, was six years old and Obeyo was only four when their father, Gbahtuo, left the Danane refugee camp in Ivory Coast to come to America.

Gbahtuo's daughter, already in America, had filed to bring Gbahtuo, but she couldn't bring Emmanuel or Obeyo since they were not full brother and sister. That's the law.

Gbahtuo, who had been tortured by the rebels and brought back to health by doctors from Medicine Sans Frontiers, still has both physical and emotional scars to remind him of the terrible civil war in Liberia. He hated to leave his two young children behind, but he wanted to provide for their future. He promised to send for them. As soon as he arrived in America, he filed the Affidavit of Relationship. He was told that he would have to do a DNA test to proove the children were his. "That was the worst day of my life," says Gbahtuo. "When they told me these were not my children."

It took six years, the services of an immigration lawyer, and letters from local congressman Brady before Gbahtuo was able to fullfill his promise to his children. During his six year struggle, he kept in touch with phone calls, and videos. He never gave up hope. Emmanuel and Obeyo never gave up their dreams of seeing their father again.

Dreams do come true. On July 26, 2006 the children arrived from Ghana into the waiting arms of their father. And on August 17, 2006 they watched in awe as Gbahtuo received his American citizenship. Gbahtuo is a third year nursing student, Emmauel and Obeyou are excited about the FACTS Charter School where they are enrolled and doing very well. Congratualtions to a family who survived on hope and determination.

Operation Warm Coat Returns!

2006-09-30T15:47:00-04:00

Operation Warm Coat

Friday, November 3, 2006
LCFS Refugee Resettlement Program, 231 N. 63rd St. in Philadelphia

Please drop of coats, jackets, hats, gloves, mittens, scarves... in EXCELLENT CONDITION only! We can use all sizes, from Infant to XX-Large

For more information, contact Lyn Back (215) 747-7500 ext. 207 or lynb@lcfsinpa.org

ESL/Literacy Teachers

2006-08-10T14:50:06-04:00

Janet Schroeder is a former Physics teacher, who has found her second calling at Lutheran Children and Family Service. She teaches ESL and literacy to our refugee clients every Monday and Thursday morning at our 63rd Street office in West Philadelphia. Helen Wieh is a refugee from Liberia. She and Janet practice reading and writing so that Helen can improve her job skills and become self sufficient. If you would like to volunteer as a tutor or ESL/Literacy teacher, please call Lyn Back at (215) 747 7500 extension 207. Or you can e-mail: lynb@lcfsinpa.org.

Refugee Housing Fund

2006-08-01T16:48:00-04:00

Lutheran Children and Family Service is accepting donations for a newly-created housing fund. 100% of donated money will go towards providing safe and comfortable homes for refugee families that have just arrived in the country. Help make the dream come true!

You may send your donations to LCFS Refugee Resettlement Program, 231 N. 63rd St. Philadelphia, PA 19139. For more information, please contact Lyn Back at 215-747-7500 ext. 207.

Volunteers to the Rescue!

2006-07-31T16:18:56-04:00

Back Row: Andrew Blakely; Front Row (L to R): Shin-Bey Chang, Hardik Amin, Anna Maria Jakubowska, Alicia Marini, Mai Rungwiwattanakoon, Cynthia Hsu

In addition to refugees and asylees, new arrivals to our office in West Philadelphia this summer have included seven enthusiastic young people. Four medical students from Drexel University, a summer intern from University of Pennsylvania, a student from Poland, and an IVP volunteer from Thailand are all lending their expertise to our refugee resettlement program.

Alicia, Mai, Hardik and Cynthia help in the Immigration Office. Under the watchful eye of Victoria Harris, they assist refugees and asylees to file for their green cards, apply for lost documents, and locate emergency travel papers. Anna Maria and Shin-Bey have become experts in working with Affidavits of Relationship (AOR's). They oversee the application process for refugees and asylees who want to file for relatives still overseas in refugee camps.

On Friday mornings, the medical students teach a series of health classes to our clients. The classes are aimed at public health issues that directly affect our clients. They have provided much needed information on high blood pressure, diabetes, HIV/AIDS prevention, and nutritional health.

Andrew says of his experience setting up health appointments and helping refugees to navigate the health care system: "I am much more aware of the difficulties refugees face in accessing health care when they first arrive in the United States. Now I empathize with people, not just refugees, and the obstacles they face.

Shin-Bey comments about her summer experience: "The strength and resilience of the refugee community impressed me. Through their courageous transition, they are able to effectively transplant their lives into a new world."

We will certainly miss these volunteers when they leave at the end of the summer! To read more about their experiences this summer, in their own words, click here.

From the Ambassador

2006-04-11T12:26:00-04:00

Adocacy Updates from our LIRS Ambassador, Robert Bolognese

Jus Soli: Birthright Citizenship (April 2, 2007)

The immigration reform debate seems to be slowly heating up. Unfortunately, one of the issues that have not been discussed is the matter of U.S. born children of illegal immigrants. Many immigration reformists call these children “anchor babies” because they are the family foothold into the U.S. When this child reaches of age, he or she can sponsor his or her family members for entry into the United States. Also, in some cases, family members of such children who are already in the U.S. hope that because of the child’s citizenship in the U.S., the immigration authorities would elect not to split up the family and would permit the child and his parents to remain together in the U.S. This issue has created a decisive debate between the two sides of immigration reform.

One side believes that the solution is to keep the family together in the U.S. and permit the child and his parents to remain in the U.S. The other side believes that the only logical solution is to deny citizenship to babies born in the U.S. whose parents are either illegal immigrants or immigrants on temporary visas. This would go against the U.S. policy of granting citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, jus soli, and those of U.S., citizenship, jus sanguinis. Interesting in many other countries throughout the world, they only recognize citizenship based on the parents of the child being a national or citizen of that state, jus sanguinis.

This issue has intensified because of a recent case involving an eight year old boy named Saul Arellano, who is a U.S. citizen. In Saul’s case, his mother Elvira Arellano, who is not a U.S. citizen, is facing deportation back to Mexico. The federal immigration authorities have convicted her of working under a false Social Security number. If she is deported, Saul either will have to go with her or remain here by being raised by someone else. Unfortunately, Saul’s father has not been part of his life and, like the mother, is not a U.S. citizen. Saul through his pastor has argued in federal court in Chicago that his due process rights are being violated if he is forced to leave the country. The court, however, concluded that such rights are not being violated because he was not required to leave the country. He could stay if his mother turned over guardianship. Therefore, the court found there was no due process violation of Saul’s right inherent in his mother’s deportation. Coleman v. U.S., No. 1:06-cv-04582 (Sept. 29).

The United States Supreme Court has already addressed this issue of citizenship for those born on U.S. soil. See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In that case, the court held that a man, who was born of two Chinese citizens who were permanent U.S. residents, was a U.S. citizen. More recently, this issue of the rights of children of illegal immigrants became an issue with respect to public benefits. In the U.S. Supreme Court case, Plyler v. Doe, the court found that the states could not deny benefits such as public education to children based on their citizenship or that of their parents. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

Congress itself has tried to address this issue. The 109th Congress has considered several bills that would override the above assessment by the court on who is subject to U.S. jurisdiction under the 14th Amendment. None of these bills passed, but each bill would have defined U.S. born children of illegal immigrants “outside” the jurisdiction of the U.S. authorities.

This issue of who is a citizen will continue to be an important issue within the immigration reform discussions this year and into the future. Unfortunately, for Saul, legislative resolution may be too late.

Immigration Reform Bill Offers Path to Citizenship (March 31, 2007)

Two lawmakers will fire the opening salvo in this year's immigration debate with the first House bill in many years to call for citizenship for illegal immigrants. Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) will unveil broad legislation that would also create a new worker program, stiffer worker verification procedures and overhaul the visa system to reduce waiting times for legal immigrants.

In recognition of the tensions that surround the controversial issue, the bill also contains provisions designed to appeal to conservatives who want stronger border enforcement and opposed citizenship provisions that grant amnesty to people in the country illegally. One measure would ensure that tough border security and work-site enforcement standards are met before other changes can go forward. Another would require illegal immigrants elgibile for citizenship under the bill to leave the country and return legally.

Kennedy praised their bill Tuesday and said he was optimistic a Senate bill would soon follow. He said lawmakers wanted a "tough but fair bill that strikes the right balance between protecting our security, strengthening our economy, and enacting laws that uphold our humanity."

New Challenges Facing Asylum-Seekers (March 18, 2007)

A person travels thousand of miles risking his or her life and, possibly spending, his or her finances to arrive to the United States. The person fled his or her country because he or she was being persecuted based on his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. He or she arrives at a point of entry and has no documents. The person is questioned by a USCIS officer and because he or she does not have any documentation, the person is sent for secondary inspection. Unless the person indicates his or her desire to apply for asylum or express a fear of persecution in their home country, the person may face summary return to their last port of embarkation without any further review, including judicial review or appeal.

If they do convey a legitimate claim for asylum., the person is detained until the credible fear finding. U.S. law requires that all arriving aliens seeking asylum must initially held in detention if they do not have a proper visa or proper entry documentation. This detention can last a long time. The above examples demonstrates the difficulties that an asylum seeker faces once arriving to the U.S. In fact, these growing level of deterance may be a factor in reducing the number of asylum applicants. Between 2001 and 2005, the number of asylum seekers asserting initial claims dropped about half. Set forth below are variety of negative factors that an asylum seeker faces in the U.S. asylum system.

Many detention facilities for illegal aliens are located in remote areas. They are away from family, legal and other systems of support. It prevents the detainee from obtaining appropriate documentation to support his or her claim. That could include obtaining medical affidavits supporting that the claimants injuries suffered in his or her country are consistent with claimants’ claims. In addition, it is difficult at times to obtain counsel or meet with counsel because of limited visiting hours or limited level of privacy at the facility.

According to U.S. immigration laws, asylum claims must be filed within 1 years of arrival in the country. There are very limited exceptions, such as a change in circumstances that materially affect applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances that delays filing. In fact, according to data from the Department of Homeland Security that this time filing requirement prevents a large number of asylum seekers asserting a asylum claim. According to a report from the American Bar Association (the “Report”), since 1998, when this requirement became in effect, U.S. asylum officers have initiated removal proceedings for asylum applicants for more than 35,000 cases because the claimants failed to file or prove they filed within the one year period. In fact, there are a number of potential asylum claimants that elected not to file for asylum relief because they missed the filing deadline and chose to live as an illegal status indefinitely. In some cases the person could have still been entitled to receive asylum relief because they fall under one of the exceptions. There are a variety of reasons why a person elects not to file, such as ignorance of the law, language barriers, or traumatize from the experience in his or her own government and fears any government.

According to the Report, two out of three asylum seekers lack representation. Representation of counsel is an invaluable factor in achieving asylum relief. Asylum seekers who are represented at their court hearings are between 1.4 and 17 times more likely to be granted asylum than those without representation, according to studies.

The Report stated that the grant rate for cases decided on merits is at 40% for Asylum Office and 39% in the Immigration Courts. Nevertheless, even with these positive numbers, there is evidence in the Immigration Court and Board of Immigration Appeals of abuses in the asylum system. The November 2006 of the ABA Journal had an article titled, Asylum Ordeals, by Margaret Gham Tebo that discusses the arbitrary and capricious decision making of immigration \judges and the limited protections at the appellate level (the “Article”). The Article references the appellate case of Cham v. Attorney General of the United States, 445 F.3d 683 in which the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated: “The case now before us exemplifies the ‘severe wound . . . . . inflicted’ when not a modicum of courtesy, of respect or of any pretense of the fairness is extended to a petitioner and the case he so valiantly attempted to present. Yet once again, under the ‘bullying’ nature of the immigration judge’s questioning, a petitioner was ground to bits.” Unfortunately, this was referenced to an asylum relief court proceeding and the immigration judge hearing the matter. There is concern has not been limited to this one particular judge. There have been other circuit courts that have raised these same issues with other immigration judges. In fact, it has come to a point where an immigration attorney representing an asylum claimant can determine the outcome of a case before it is heard based what immigration judge is assigned to the case. The Article mentions a study by Andrew I. Schoenholtz, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, which shows that, as mentioned above, the national average of granting asylum relief by the courts is 38%, but within those averages there is a discrepancy in the decision making. According the Schoenholtz., some judges grant 10 of the cases while other grant 80 to 90 % of the cases. Most fall within 25 to 50% grant rate. According to the “Clearinghouse Report” (as defined in footnote 1), there was on immigration judge, who was a former Immigration and Naturalization Service employee, who denied 96.7% asylum petitions. In contrast, there was a New York immigration judge who worked for the Legal Aid Society’s immigration unit who only 9.8% of the cases. With the burden of proof on the asylum seeker to demonstrate that he satisfied the requirements to be granted asylum, who most likely does not have any supporting documentation, this can be a difficult task when facing an impatient immigration judge. This burden of proof will only become more difficult with the passage of the REAL ID Act, which requires asylum applicants to prove that the persecution they have suffered or will suffer in their home countries is primarily a result of their “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.” Prior to this requirement, the applicant only had to provide that one or more of these characteristics was “a” reason for their persecution instead of being the central reason for the persecution. This is a difficult task, especially without any type of real documentation. It appears it becomes a subjective decision of the judge.

The other problem is that the immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals are overburdened. There are about 200 immigration judges nationwide who handle more than 250,000 immigration cases annually, including 25,000 asylum petitions. In addition, 40,000 cases of the 250,000 are appealed to the BIA. Then 12,000 of those appealed cases are then appealed to the federal circuit, which overturns about 40% of the immigration appeals nationwide. The process of review has been streamlined beginning in 2002, but this raised concern that the fairness of the process. Some immigration lawyers argue that the backlog just shifted to the federal courts because of BIA was merely rubberstamping the immigration court’s decisions. As part of this reform was reducing the number of members on the Board of Immigration Appeals from 23 to 11. The American Bar Association raised concerns about this reform and has recommended to Congress that immigration judges be required to make findings of fact and conclusion of law in ruling on petitions and for federal courts to be allowed to conduct meaningful review of immigration court decisions involving deportation or removal. Furthermore, the ABA recommended that the immigration courts no longer be controlled by the executive branch office.

In the end, an asylum applicants faces many challenges in being granted asylum in the U.S. and in many cases, such challenges may be more daunting than the challenges they faced in getting the United States. In the end, the goal is preventing a person being returned to a country where he or she would face such persecution. It would be unfortunate that our asylum system allows that because of a systems that negative procedural results and based on subjective decision making.