FAQ: Managing Misinformation
VAAP is hearing from many community groups hoping to speak with an immigration lawyer to help make sense of the highly speculative and often incorrect immigration-related information circulating online and within communities.
We unfortunately lack capacity to attend to these community meetings ourselves at this time, but will continue to share accurate, reliable information from our regional and national partners with Vermont using this website and our social media channels.
We would also gladly train and support Education/Outreach Volunteer Attorneys willing to attend community events to help address communities’ concerns, share talking points, and connect people to resources like those provided by VAAP.
Meanwhile, see below for this week’s roundup of Frequently Asked Questions arising as a result of speculative reporting and misinformation sharing:
1) For those most vulnerable to deportation, how can they protect themselves? For those on TPS, can they file now for asylum? Will it give them much protection at this point? For those on temporary visas, any recommendations?
We are working with partners to add enforcement preparedness resources to our website to address questions like planning for dependent care and custody, medical needs, applying for relief from removal, etc. Meanwhile, from an immigration legal lens, individuals with renewable temporary status can continue to renew those statuses now. They should expect temporary statuses to become nonrenewable after the Trump Administration assumes power, meaning once benefits like work authorization expires they will be renewable at that point. Individuals with viable claims for asylum can submit those claims now, too.
If a person is not yet in removal proceedings, they should be informed that federal law requires USCIS to refer any asylum seekers for removal proceedings whose cases it declines to grant at the asylum interview stage. A person with a weak claim who is not yet in removal proceedings may decide that the risk of removal is not worth applying for asylum, and instead may choose to rely on other temporary protections as available or to fall out of status. Review our asylum overview page, our resource library, and our recent FAQ on temporary status to help individuals do a personalized cost-benefit analysis on whether to apply for asylum.
It remains true that ICE has discretion to detain individuals in removal proceedings in general, but that ICE tends to focus its resources on detaining individuals who it decides pose a national security threat or community safety risk. This is why any law enforcement contact, even an arrest for charges that get dropped, puts under-documented people at risk of immigration detention. Detained individuals have a right to a hearing with an Immigration Judge to review ICE’s detention decision. For rural areas like Vermont, the most common fact pattern giving rise to ICE detention are charges for driving under the influence or other potentially physically harmful driving infractions. Dropped charges alone are enough for ICE to justify to a judge that an individual poses a “community safety risk” and should stay detained for the pendency of their removal proceedings. Read about a recent VT example case here.
It remains true that individuals in removal proceedings who lack viable claims for relief from removal can continue to seek prosecutorial discretion. It also remains true that any individuals who ICE detains, including those previously ordered removed, can invoke their fear of return to their country of origin to trigger their right to a fear interview. Anyone ordered removed can continue to submit ICE motions to stay removal on Form I-246.
In sum, immigration law and practice remain intact, and executive policies remain as unreliable as ever.
This also means pre-existing deficiencies in immigration law and practice remain intact, too. VAAP expresses solidarity with the folks who have always been and remain at highest risk for deportation: the undocumented workers on whose shoulders the Vermont economy stands and for whom U.S. immigration law never has and unlikely ever will provide pathways to regularized status. Even where legal pathways exist, invoking them proves impossible by virtue of our location on the U.S. border, relegating undocumented and previously removed workers to a reduced due process deportation proceeding called “expedited removal” which is functionally impossible to overcome.
Migrant Justice summarized these deportation risks best: “We know that the government repression of immigrants is ultimately about economic control. One of the goals of immigration restrictions throughout U.S. history has been to maintain an underclass of workers without rights protections who can be exploited and abused. Now is no different.”
VAAP will continue to monitor and report on the immigration legal risks and challenges of all of Vermont’s foreign-born communities and mixed-status families, including community members who the law was designed to permanently exploit and exclude.
2) For those waiting for their asylum cases, what can they do to protect themselves? What if their asylum is not granted, can they immediately appeal and if so does this offer temporary protection?
We recommend that all Vermont noncitizens carry a copy of their pending application receipt notice(s) and/or work authorization documents in their wallets, whenever possible, in case they are stopped by CBP or ICE by virtue of our location on the U.S. border. As above, we are also working with partners to add enforcement preparedness resources to our website to address questions like planning for dependent care and custody, medical needs, applying for relief from removal, etc.
Otherwise, minimizing risk of criminal arrest is the number one thing noncitri can do to protect themselves from detention and deportability grounds at this time.
Asylum applicants can also continue to prepare supporting evidence for their asylum cases using our growing resource library to maximize their chance of success at their asylum hearing. If the USCIS Asylum Office denies an application, they refer the applicant for removal proceedings where an Immigration Judge conducts another hearing from a “fresh” perspective. If the Immigration Judge denies the application, the applicant has a right to appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. In some cases, a person can appeal an adverse decisions from the BIA to the federal courts. A person’s removal is stayed pending resolution of their asylum appeal.
3) For asylees, do they have to wait a year before applying for their green cards or can they apply immediately and just have to wait a year before processing starts?
Federal law continues to require asylees and refugees to spend one (1) year in that status before applying for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence (to apply for “green cards”). If a person applies too sign, they should expect the government to reject the filing.
4) For those awaiting green cards, is there any way to speed up the processing?
Individuals whose cases are outside of reported normal processing time can submit an inquiry to one of their congressional constituent advocacy offices: Representative Balint’s, Senator Welch’s, or Senator Sanders’s. Only inquire with one office at a time to prevent causing undue delays! Individuals whose cases are outside of legally required processing times can file suit in federal court to try and compel government action. Unfortunately, VAAP lacks the resources to offer legal help with either of these two options at this time.
5) Are they any safer in VT than in other states... if so, why? if not, why?
Vermont leads the states in immigration-safe local lawmaking, but our location along the U.S. border gives CBP and ICE wide discretion to police our communities according to federal law, too. Browse our blog to learn more about VAAP’s advocacy to maximize Vermont’s legacy as a welcoming state!
6) Expectation for the new administration coming in on day 1
We are taking care to consult with regional and national leaders before predicting or opining on expected policy changes. Sign up for our newsletter and monitor our blog where we will share accurate, reliable information as we confirm it. Meanwhile, we encourage people to scrutinize media sources and try to reserve action planning until reliable sources can confirm research-backed immigration news. Fear-mongering is a deliberate tactic on the part of the government to discourage people from invoking their immigration and related rights.
7) Reliable sites we could check for daily updates on the situation
This very website! Start with our asylum 101 and move onto our evolving resource library.
