October 10, 2003

On October 10, 2003, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) hosted an off-the-record roundtable to discuss the Expedited Removal study now being conducted by a group of experts for the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). The following is a brief summary of the study and issues discussed at the roundtable.

Background - the US Commission on International Religious Freedom:

USCIRF Commissioners Preeta Bansal and The Most Reverend Bishop Ricardo Ramirez opened the roundtable discussion with an introduction to the history, work and members of the Commission. USCIRF was created as a part of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA) and is tasked with monitoring religious freedom in other countries and to advise the President, Congress, and Secretary of State on how best to promote such freedom.

It is a bi-partisan federal commission composed of nine experts from fields relevant to the issue of human rights and religious freedom. Five members are appointed by the President’s party and four are appointed from the other party (two from the House of Representatives and two from the Senate), with a set formula allocating Commission appointments among the White House and Congressional leadership. The current chair is Dean Michael K.Young of George Washington University’s School of Law.

Mark Hetfield, the co-chair of the roundtable, is the Commission’s Immigration Counsel and is responsible for coordinating its study on the impact of Expedited Removal on asylum seekers, as well as the Commission's work on other matters relating to refugees and asylum. The other experts retained by the Commission for the study are Kate Jastram of the University of California-Berkeley, immigration lawyer Robert Divine from the Chattanooga, Tennessee office of Baker Donelson law firm and Dr. Allen Keller, Director of the NYU-Bellevue Center for Victims of Torture. All but Dr. Keller were participants at the roundtable.

Background - the study on the impact of Expedited Removal on asylum seekers:

IRFA authorized a study to determine whether asylum seekers subject to Expedited Removal proceedings are being treated "improperly" or detained "inappropriately." The General Accounting Office (GAO) was required by the statute to conduct such a study, which it completed in 2000. USCIRF was also authorized to conduct such a study, and is Congressionally authorized to have “unrestricted” access to all stages of Expedited Removal proceedings. Given the issues raised by the dissolution of the INS and the creation of three new bureaus within the Department of Homeland Security to carry out Expedited Removal and with the link between religious freedom issues and asylum becoming increasingly apparent, the Commission has decided to proceed with the study at this time.

The four questions provided to the Commission and GAO by statute are:

Whether, with regard to individuals potentially eligible for asylum or Convention Against Torture relief in Expedited Removal proceedings, immigration officers are:
(A) Improperly encouraging such aliens to withdraw their applications for admission.
(B) Incorrectly failing to refer such aliens for an interview by an asylum officer for a determination of whether they have a credible fear of persecution.
(C) Incorrectly removing such aliens to a country where they may be persecuted.
(D) Detaining such aliens improperly or in inappropriate conditions.

This roundtable on Expedited Removal was an opportunity for the Commissioners and its experts to learn from the experience and viewpoints of “knowledgeable stakeholders:” those who have worked on the policy and/or use of Expedited Removal. The Commission is soliciting assistance in defining the benchmarks to be used for determining what, under national and international standards, would constitute “improper,” “incorrect,” or “inappropriate” treatment. As part of their work, the USCIRF staff and experts completing the study recently completed a tour of airports and detention facilities in the New York and New Jersey area, where they held a similar roundtable discussion. Their field work will be mirrored in other cities and regions in the near future.

The roundtable included, among other subjects, frank discussion of:

• The previous GAO Study on Expedited Removal
• The difficulties in collecting data on expedited removal cases
• The international context of detention and expedited removal of asylum seekers
• The role of and division of labor within the newly created bureaucracies of the Department of Homeland Security on asylum issues
• Conditions in detention, especially of women and children and access to mental health and appropriate medical care