Is Uscis Reviewing Asylum Case of Before 2012
A Mounting Asylum Backlog and Growing Wait Times
Over iv out of every ten Immigration Courtroom cases in which asylum applications have been filed since October 2000 are withal pending. That means that of the one.6 million Court cases in which asylum applications were filed, two-thirds of a million asylum seekers (667,229) are still waiting for hearings to resolve their cases. See Figure one.
These wait times have ballooned. Current await times for cases in the asylum backlog at present average 1,621 days. This translates into 54 months or nearly 4 and a half years. Come across Tabular array 1.
Table 1. Clearing Court Asylum Excess as of September 30, 2021
| Adjacent Hearing Type | Pending Cases | Boilerplate Days Expect from NTA to: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9/xxx/21 | Adjacent Hearing | ||
| All* | 667,229 | one,156 | 1,621 |
| Individual | 349,720 | 1,348 | one,751 |
| Chief Calendar | 205,178 | 865 | 1,136 |
| Not Even so Scheduled | 112,331 | one,089 | 2,102 |
For many aviary cases, multiple hearings are required earlier an Immigration Judge reaches a final decision. The initial hearing is called a Principal Agenda hearing.[i] Master Calendar hearings are similar in some respects to an arraignment in a criminal case: multiple cases are heard at the same session and the purpose is to sort out what is needed for the case to motility forward and ultimately be resolved. Even the wait for a Principal Calendar hearing is an average of 1,136 days in cases in which an asylum application has already been filed. Just under a third of awaiting asylum cases, some 205,178 immigrants, are currently waiting for a Principal Agenda hearing.
For those waiting for their aviary application to be heard in an individual hearing, the wait is now i,751 days, some 58 months or shut to five years.
Further, one in vi immigrants in pending asylum cases are waiting for their side by side hearing even to exist scheduled. These don't tend to exist new cases since the average time they take already waited as of the stop of September 30, 2021, is already i,089 days. If, because of clogged court schedules, their hearings put them at the terminate of the line, their next hearing may well be over 2,000 days out, the equivalent of nigh a half-dozen-year await from when the DHS initiated their case by issuing their Notice to Appear (NTA).
Asylum seekers arrive at the Clearing Court through two chief paths: as referrals from Asylum Officers in the Us Citizenship and Clearing Services (USCIS) ("affirmative" cases), or directly in response to deportation filings by the Section of Homeland Security (DHS) where asylum claims are raised every bit a defense ("defensive" cases).[two]
In general, every bit shown in Tabular array two, affirmative aviary cases have somewhat lower boilerplate wait time than defensive cases. This reflects both the relative growth rates over time of affirmative and defensive aviary cases, also equally their geographic distribution. As discussed later in this report, wait times vary by Immigration Court so these differences reflect to some extent the distribution of affirmative versus defensive cases among Courts.
Tabular array 2. Immigration Courtroom Aviary Backlog by Type of Case as of September 30, 2021
| Adjacent Hearing Type | Number by Blazon of Aviary Case* | Boilerplate Days Wait** | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | Affirmative | Defensive | All | Affirmative | Defensive | |
| All | 667,229 | 196,994 | 470,235 | 1,621 | 1,489 | 1,676 |
| Private | 349,720 | 93,641 | 256,079 | 1,751 | 1,582 | 1,813 |
| Primary Calendar | 205,178 | 64,946 | 140,232 | 1,136 | 989 | 1,205 |
| None Scheduled | 112,331 | 38,407 | 73,924 | 2,102 | ii,107 | 2,099 |
Growth in the Asylum Backlog
Twelvemonth after year asylum applications filed in Immigration Court have far exceeded decisions rendered on these applications. This has been true for decades. Meet Figure 2. Thus, the existence of an asylum excess is not new. What is new is the current awe-inspiring size of the backlog and the failure over the terminal two decades to successfully halt the backlog's explosive growth.[3]
Asylum cases are among the more than complex and time-consuming cases that Immigration Judges handle. In FY 2012 asylum filings made up around two in every ten displacement cases filed with the Immigration Courtroom. Aviary filings, however, have risen faster than all deportation cases. During each of the last three years, asylum filings comprised about 3 out of every ten Courtroom filings.
At the cease of FY 2012 the asylum backlog stood at 105,919. X years subsequently the excess had climbed to 667,229, or six.iii times the size. The affirmative asylum excess had grown from 73,676 to 196,994 or 2.7 times the size, while the defensive aviary backlog had grown during the same period from just 32,243 to 470,235 or 14.6 times as big. See Effigy 3 and Table 3.
Given this explosive growth, aviary cases make up an always larger proportion of the Court's backlog. At the cease of FY 2012 aviary cases made up well-nigh i out of three cases in the overall Court backlog. By the end of FY 2021, the proportion of the asylum cases (33%) in the total Court'south backlog had climbed to simply under half (46%). And this may be an underestimate. Aviary applications are typically filed afterwards a case is well underway, and until an aviary application is filed with the Court, the case is not to be counted in the asylum backlog. Thus, some asylum applications are undoubtedly yet to exist filed in a number of existing cases.
Table 4 breaks down the asylum backlog increase by presidential assistants. By the stop of the Obama administration at the end of FY 2016, the asylum backlog had grown to 163,451. This was an increment of 57,532 cases or a 54 percentage leap since four years earlier. This increase occurred despite many efforts by that administration to reduce the overall backlog of which aviary cases formed an important part.
Policies adopted to curtail the backlog's growth during the Trump administration were as well unsuccessful in stopping the asylum backlog'south growth. From FY 2017 to FY 2020, the excess shot up to 614,751. This was an increment of 451,300 cases, nearly eight times the increase during the last four years of the Obama assistants. See Figure 4.
While at that place was a sharp drop in asylum applications with the partial Court shutdown as a result of COVID, asylum instance completions as well dropped. Thus, the asylum backlog continued to build and now has reached 667,229. Indeed, the increment in the asylum backlog in just the first year of the Biden assistants (52,478) was almost equally big every bit the increase during the last four years of the Obama administration (57,532). See Tabular array 4.
Table three. Growth in the Immigration Court Asylum Excess Over the Past Decade, FY 2012 - FY 2021
| Asylum Application Type | Financial Year | 2012 vs 2021 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | ||
| Asylum Case Excess | Ratio | ||||||||||
| All | 105,919 | 108,398 | 114,603 | 136,145 | 163,451 | 259,871 | 364,990 | 489,003 | 614,751 | 667,229 | 6.iii |
| Affirmative | 73,676 | 69,999 | 64,001 | 66,263 | 60,553 | 69,024 | 105,818 | 152,396 | 182,778 | 196,994 | 2.7 |
| Defensive | 32,243 | 38,399 | l,602 | 69,882 | 102,898 | 190,847 | 259,172 | 336,607 | 431,973 | 470,235 | xiv.6 |
| # Annual Change in Excess | # Change | ||||||||||
| All | 2,479 | half-dozen,205 | 21,542 | 27,306 | 96,420 | 105,119 | 124,013 | 125,748 | 52,478 | 561,310 | |
| Affirmative | -3,677 | -five,998 | 2,262 | -five,710 | 8,471 | 36,794 | 46,578 | thirty,382 | fourteen,216 | 123,318 | |
| Defensive | 6,156 | 12,203 | 19,280 | 33,016 | 87,949 | 68,325 | 77,435 | 95,366 | 38,262 | 437,992 | |
| % Annual Change in Backlog | % Change | ||||||||||
| All | 2.3% | 5.seven% | 18.8% | 20.1% | 59.0% | 40.v% | 34.0% | 25.seven% | 8.5% | 530% | |
| Affirmative | -5.0% | -8.six% | 3.five% | -8.6% | fourteen.0% | 53.3% | 44.0% | nineteen.9% | 7.eight% | 167% | |
| Defensive | xix.i% | 31.8% | 38.ane% | 47.2% | 85.5% | 35.eight% | 29.9% | 28.three% | 8.9% | 1358% | |
Tabular array 4. Change in Clearing Court Asylum Backlog past Presidential Administration
| Asylum Application Type | # Change in Backlog | % Modify in Backlog | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY2012-2016 | FY2016-2020 | FY2020-2021 | FY2012-2016 | FY2016-2020 | FY2020-2021 | |
| All | 57,532 | 451,300 | 52,478 | 54% | 276% | eight.5% |
| Affirmative | -seven,413 | 122,225 | 14,216 | -10% | 202% | 7.8% |
| Defensive | 37,639 | 329,075 | 38,262 | 117% | 320% | 8.9% |
Completed Aviary Cases and Outcomes
Aviary grant rates have frequently been the focus of public attention and discussion. An implicit supposition is often made that if the immigrants' aviary applications are denied that they have been unsuccessful in their quest to legally remain in the U.S. Withal, this may not always be the example. In add-on to asylum, at that place are ofttimes other avenues for relief, and other types of decisions where the Clearing Courtroom can determine that an private should be allowed to legally remain in the U.Due south. This report breaks new ground in empirically documenting but how ofttimes asylum seekers' quests to legally remain in the U.S. take been successful.
Co-ordinate to case-by-instance records of the Clearing Courts, Clearing Judges completed close to one million cases (967,552) on which asylum applications had been filed during the last 21 years (October 2000 - September 2021). Of these, judges granted aviary to 249,413 or one-quarter (26%) of these cases.
However, only almost half of asylum seekers were ordered deported. More specifically, merely 42 percent received removal orders or their equivalent,[four] and an additional 8 percent received so-chosen voluntary deviation orders. These orders require the aviary seekers to leave the country, just unlike removal orders voluntary deviation orders do not penalize individuals farther past legally barring them for a period of years from reentry should their circumstances modify.
The remaining one-quarter (24%) of asylum seekers were granted other forms or relief or Clearing Judges closed their cases using other grounds which allowed asylum seekers to legally remain in the country.[five] When this proportion is added to asylum grant rates, half of asylum seekers in Immigration Court cases — about twice the individuals granted asylum — have been successful in their quest to legally remain in the United States at least for a menstruation of time. Come across Figure 5.
Focusing on just Immigration Courtroom aviary cases, nevertheless, does not take into consideration asylum seekers who have asylum granted by Asylum Officers from the Us Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Those cases end there with the asylum grant. Only unsuccessful cases are forwarded to the Immigration Court for review anew, and thus included in the Clearing Courtroom's records. These referrals of asylum denials by USCIS Asylum Officers are classified in the Court's records as affirmative asylum cases,[6] to distinguish them from those that start with DHS seeking a removal lodge from the Immigration Court and the asylum claim existence raised every bit a defence against removal.
Thus, a more complete picture of aviary seekers to the U.Due south. would add in the asylum grants by USCIS on these affirmative cases. Over the period since October 2000, the total number of asylum grants totals just under 600,000 cases - more than double the asylum grants by Immigration Judges lone.[7] Aviary Officers granted aviary in just over 350,000 cases, while Immigration Judges granted asylum in an additional close to 250,000 cases. See Tables 5a and 5b.
Asylum grants thus make up well-nigh one-half (46%) of the outcomes on the full number of 1.iii one thousand thousand cases closed in which asylum applications were filed. An additional one in five (18%) were granted some other form of relief or otherwise allowed to legally remain in the U.Southward. Thus, nearly ii-thirds (64%) of aviary seekers in the 1.3 million cases which were resolved have been successful over the past two decades.
Effigy 5 above presents a side-past-side comparison of aviary case outcomes when examining Immigration Court completions solitary, and how result percentages shift once Aviary Officers' asylum grants are combined with decisions made by Immigration Judges.
Table 5a. Receipt of U.S. Aviary Cases, Oct 2000-September 2021
| Receipt of Asylum Cases | Number |
|---|---|
| USCIS Affirmative Asylum Cases | |
| Full USCIS Asylum Grants* | 350,359 |
| USCIS Denials Referred to IJs | 653,962 |
| Clearing Courtroom (IJ) Aviary Receipts | |
| Affirmative Asylum Cases Received (from USCIS) | 653,962 |
| Defensive Asylum Cases Received | 979,808 |
| Full Asylum Cases Received by IJs | ane,633,770 |
| Currently Pending | 666,218 |
| Total IJ Asylum Completions | 967,552 |
Table 5b. Consequence of U.S. Asylum Cases, Oct 2000-September 2021
| Event on Asylum Cases | Number | Pct** |
|---|---|---|
| IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases | ||
| Asylum Granted by IJ | 249,413 | 26% |
| Other Relief, etc. | 236,889 | 24% |
| Removal Society | 403,252 | 42% |
| Voluntary Departure Order | 77,998 | eight% |
| Full IJ Asylum Completions | 967,552 | 100% |
| USCIS + IJ Outcome on Aviary Cases | ||
| Asylum Granted by USCIS+IJ | 599,772 | 46% |
| Other Relief, etc past IJ | 236,889 | eighteen% |
| Removal Social club past IJ | 403,252 | 31% |
| Voluntary Divergence Order by IJ | 77,998 | six% |
| USCIS + IJ Asylum Completions | i,317,911 | 100% |
Where Asylum Cases Have Been Filed
Aviary applicants accept been quite unevenly distributed across the United States. Over the last two decades, but 4 Clearing Courts have accounted for almost half of asylum applications and decisions. These four Courts are based in New York City, Los Angeles, Miami, and San Francisco.[8] The remaining more threescore Courts roughly business relationship for the other half.
The New York City Immigration Court has handled the largest number of asylum applicants, over i quarter one thousand thousand from FY 2001 through FY 2021. Judges at that place have completed two thirds of these cases so far.[9] The second busiest Court when it comes to asylum applicants is on the reverse side of the country in Los Angeles. Information technology has had slightly over 180,000 asylum applicants during this aforementioned period, and has completed nigh three-fourths of these cases.[10]
The Miami and San Francisco Immigration Courts accept had the third and fourth largest concentrations of asylum applicants. Each of these two Courts have received over 125,000 cases involving aviary seekers. In Miami, judges in that location have managed to complete two-thirds of their cases, comparable to the completion percentage in New York City. San Francisco has a higher proportion of cases (44%) still pending.
After these top four Courts, cases involving asylum seekers, while still numerous in other major urban areas, drop off significantly. A complete list of Court locations, sorted by the number of airtight asylum cases during the final 2 decades, is found in Tabular array 6.
Asylum Seekers Success Rates by Immigration Court
The success of asylum seekers in completed cases varied widely by Immigration Court.[11] This is also shown in Tabular array six. The highest proportion of asylum seekers who won a favorable outcome allowing them to remain in this country was in the New York Immigration Court where 73 percent out of the 169,496 cases they airtight, in which aviary applications were filed were successful. This was followed by the Honolulu Immigration Court (69%), the San Francisco and Phoenix Immigration Courts (each 65%) and the Boston Court (61%).
While these Courts made upwardly the acme five with respect to asylum success rates, they were followed closely past other Courts including Portland (60%), Arlington (60%), Sacramento (59%), Los Angeles (56%), and Newark (55%). All of these were significantly to a higher place the national average of a l percent success charge per unit.
The lowest proportion of aviary seekers who won a favorable outcome occurred for the Immigration Court handling detained cases in Fishkill, New York. There only four percent were not ordered deported. Four other Clearing Courts - including three handling detained cases - had success rates of less than 10 percent. These were Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands (vi%), Jena, Louisiana (9%), Lumpkin, Georgia (9%), and Napanoch, New York (9%). See Table vi for a complete courtroom-by-court listing.
Table half dozen. Immigration Cases in Which Asylum Applications Filed and Outcome by Location, FY 2001- FY 2021
| Clearing Court Location | Aviary Cases Filed FY 2001-2021 | Closed Aviary Cases | Outcome (Percent) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Filed | Even so Pending | Percent Awaiting | Full Closed | Removal Ordered | Vol Deviation Society | Total Divergence Ordered | Deviation Ordered | Can Remain in U.Southward. | |
| All | 1,633,770 | 666,218 | 41% | 967,552 | 403,252 | 77,998 | 481,250 | 50% | l% |
| New York | 252,224 | 82,728 | 33% | 169,496 | 43,008 | 2,634 | 45,642 | 27% | 73% |
| Los Angeles | 181,147 | 48,219 | 27% | 132,928 | 38,596 | xx,284 | 58,880 | 44% | 56% |
| Miami | 135,300 | 43,808 | 32% | 91,492 | 52,285 | 5,215 | 57,500 | 63% | 37% |
| San Francisco | 126,679 | 55,771 | 44% | 70,908 | xviii,923 | 5,668 | 24,591 | 35% | 65% |
| Orlando | 56,049 | 22,693 | xl% | 33,356 | sixteen,385 | 2,143 | 18,528 | 56% | 44% |
| Baltimore | 51,175 | twenty,642 | 40% | xxx,533 | 12,745 | 1,492 | 14,237 | 47% | 53% |
| Arlington | 66,234 | 37,049 | 56% | 29,185 | ten,084 | 1,675 | 11,759 | xl% | 60% |
| Houston | 46,385 | 19,226 | 41% | 27,159 | 20,243 | 1,759 | 22,002 | 81% | 19% |
| Boston | 51,610 | 28,824 | 56% | 22,786 | 6,813 | 2,143 | viii,956 | 39% | 61% |
| Newark | 60,170 | 37,517 | 62% | 22,653 | viii,368 | 1,780 | ten,148 | 45% | 55% |
| Chicago | 46,664 | 27,042 | 58% | xix,622 | 7,349 | 1,661 | nine,010 | 46% | 54% |
| Seattle | 26,512 | 10,720 | xl% | fifteen,792 | 5,510 | i,782 | seven,292 | 46% | 54% |
| Philadelphia | 30,208 | 14,696 | 49% | 15,512 | v,579 | two,056 | 7,635 | 49% | 51% |
| Atlanta | 24,843 | 9,731 | 39% | 15,112 | viii,308 | ii,410 | 10,718 | 71% | 29% |
| San Diego | xvi,664 | 3,600 | 22% | 13,064 | 5,812 | 869 | six,681 | 51% | 49% |
| Cleveland | xx,400 | vii,748 | 38% | 12,652 | 5,681 | 863 | 6,544 | 52% | 48% |
| Memphis | 21,260 | ix,771 | 46% | 11,489 | 6,356 | 743 | seven,099 | 62% | 38% |
| Dallas | 25,095 | 13,777 | 55% | 11,318 | half-dozen,106 | 1,328 | 7,434 | 66% | 34% |
| Miami - Krome | 10,343 | 50 | 0% | 10,293 | 7,470 | i,534 | 9,004 | 87% | 13% |
| Las Vegas | 14,657 | 4,374 | 30% | 10,283 | 4,160 | 1,259 | 5,419 | 53% | 47% |
| Omaha | 20,099 | 9,912 | 49% | 10,187 | iv,097 | 1,963 | half-dozen,060 | 59% | 41% |
| Detroit | 12,787 | 3,213 | 25% | nine,574 | v,013 | 1,065 | 6,078 | 63% | 37% |
| San Antonio | xviii,877 | 9,328 | 49% | 9,549 | 5,340 | 520 | 5,860 | 61% | 39% |
| Phoenix | 15,408 | 6,326 | 41% | 9,082 | 2,004 | 1,163 | 3,167 | 35% | 65% |
| Denver | sixteen,946 | eight,014 | 47% | 8,932 | 3,333 | 1,575 | 4,908 | 55% | 45% |
| Bloomington | 16,643 | vii,891 | 47% | 8,752 | 3,909 | 1,058 | four,967 | 57% | 43% |
| Charlotte | 15,776 | 8,236 | 52% | vii,540 | four,346 | 672 | 5,018 | 67% | 33% |
| Portland | thirteen,333 | 6,119 | 46% | 7,214 | 1,920 | 973 | 2,893 | 40% | sixty% |
| Adelanto | vii,238 | 35 | 0% | 7,203 | 5,337 | 320 | v,657 | 79% | 21% |
| Hartford | eleven,940 | 4,864 | 41% | 7,076 | three,518 | 388 | 3,906 | 55% | 45% |
| Elizabeth | 6,771 | 26 | 0% | 6,745 | 4,232 | 316 | iv,548 | 67% | 33% |
| Kansas City | 13,743 | 7,099 | 52% | half-dozen,644 | 3,266 | one,125 | four,391 | 66% | 34% |
| Tacoma | 6,347 | 32 | 1% | 6,315 | 3,621 | 914 | 4,535 | 72% | 28% |
| Los Angeles - North | 13,016 | half-dozen,783 | 52% | 6,233 | five,120 | 365 | 5,485 | 88% | 12% |
| New York - NYV | 15,420 | 9,246 | sixty% | 6,174 | iv,062 | 253 | four,315 | 70% | 30% |
| New Orleans | 17,764 | 11,644 | 66% | six,120 | 3,339 | 424 | iii,763 | 61% | 39% |
| West Valley | 7,490 | 2,144 | 29% | 5,346 | 3,096 | 637 | 3,733 | 70% | 30% |
| Conroe | 5,164 | 71 | 1% | five,093 | 3,961 | 461 | iv,422 | 87% | 13% |
| Harlingen | 6,794 | ane,753 | 26% | 5,041 | 3,542 | 270 | three,812 | 76% | 24% |
| Eloy | 5,001 | 90 | 2% | 4,911 | 3,543 | 344 | three,887 | 79% | 21% |
| Los Fresnos | 4,534 | ten | 0% | 4,524 | iii,506 | 160 | iii,666 | 81% | 19% |
| Pearsall | 3,781 | 22 | one% | 3,759 | ii,525 | 281 | 2,806 | 75% | 25% |
| Lumpkin | 3,688 | 59 | 2% | three,629 | 3,036 | 271 | iii,307 | 91% | 9% |
| Honolulu | 3,350 | 120 | four% | three,230 | 877 | 123 | 1,000 | 31% | 69% |
| Buffalo | 4,016 | 812 | 20% | three,204 | 1,642 | 357 | ane,999 | 62% | 38% |
| Regal | 3,249 | 323 | 10% | 2,926 | 1,908 | 177 | 2,085 | 71% | 29% |
| Oakdale | ii,776 | 65 | 2% | 2,711 | 2,087 | 323 | 2,410 | 89% | xi% |
| Louisville | 7,078 | 4,403 | 62% | 2,675 | one,185 | 271 | 1,456 | 54% | 46% |
| Chaparral | two,621 | 93 | iv% | 2,528 | 1,927 | 126 | 2,053 | 81% | xix% |
| Jena | two,532 | 29 | one% | 2,503 | 1,894 | 396 | 2,290 | 91% | 9% |
| Florence | 2,484 | 31 | i% | 2,453 | 1,926 | 112 | ii,038 | 83% | 17% |
| El Paso - EPD | 2,417 | 17 | 1% | 2,400 | one,871 | 114 | 1,985 | 83% | 17% |
| Aurora | 2,360 | 22 | ane% | 2,338 | 1,521 | 184 | 1,705 | 73% | 27% |
| New York - NYB | 19,653 | 17,436 | 89% | ii,217 | 1,065 | 32 | one,097 | 49% | 51% |
| El Paso | four,561 | 2,366 | 52% | 2,195 | ane,058 | 83 | 1,141 | 52% | 48% |
| Tucson | 2,528 | 356 | 14% | 2,172 | ane,115 | 172 | ane,287 | 59% | 41% |
| Atlanta - ATD | 2,175 | 189 | nine% | 1,986 | 1,573 | 178 | 1,751 | 88% | 12% |
| Batavia | 1,705 | 33 | 2% | ane,672 | 1,290 | 35 | 1,325 | 79% | 21% |
| Guaynabo | i,828 | 168 | 9% | 1,660 | 614 | 263 | 877 | 53% | 47% |
| Otay Mesa | i,588 | 9 | 1% | ane,579 | i,016 | 76 | 1,092 | 69% | 31% |
| Van Nuys | 17,291 | 15,786 | 91% | one,505 | 669 | 50 | 719 | 48% | 52% |
| Houston - Gessner | 9,005 | 7,755 | 86% | i,250 | 934 | 17 | 951 | 76% | 24% |
| Hagatna | 1,184 | 91 | 8% | 1,093 | 501 | 59 | 560 | 51% | 49% |
| Sacramento | 3,669 | 2,609 | 71% | ane,060 | 405 | 25 | 430 | 41% | 59% |
| Fishkill | 374 | 4 | ane% | 370 | 357 | 0 | 357 | 96% | iv% |
| Houston - Greenspoint | 12,848 | 12,576 | 98% | 272 | 126 | 1 | 127 | 47% | 53% |
| Napanoch | 246 | iii | 1% | 243 | 221 | 0 | 221 | 91% | 9% |
| Saipan | 44 | eleven | 25% | 33 | 23 | 8 | 31 | 94% | six% |
| No Court Assigned | 9 | 8 | 89% | i | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | 100% |
Asylum Backlog and Wait Times past Immigration Courtroom
The asylum backlog apparently reflects in significant part where asylum seekers claims accept been filed. However, some Courts have greater resources constraints in handling their caseloads. The more substantial the relative shortage of bachelor judges in those Courtroom locations, the more the asylum excess grows along with wait times for hearings.
The Denver Clearing Court currently has the longest expect times. On average, aviary seekers in that location wait i,943 days from the date DHS initiates their instance by issuing a Notice to Appear (NTA) to the next scheduled hearing. Average wait times are just slightly lower in the Arlington Immigration Courtroom (1,934 days) and the New Orleans Immigration Courtroom (1,930 days). The Courts in Portland, Omaha, Newark and Seattle all have boilerplate wait times above 1,800 days.
In contrast, a total of fifteen Immigration Courts - all hearing detained cases - had average wait times of less than 200 days. And at most simply a handful of case were waiting. Each of their backlogs ranged from just 2 cases to 39 cases. Look times for these Courts included those at Batavia, New York (74 days), Otay Mesa, California (83 days), Chaparral, New Mexico (87 days), Oakdale, Louisiana (102 days), Eloy, Arizona (103 days), Aurora, Colorado (106 days), Pearsall, Texas (108 days), Los Fresnos, Texas (119 days), Adelanto, California (121 days), Conroe, Texas (145 days), Napanoch, New York (148 days), Lumpkin, Georgia (159 days), Miami-Krome, Florida (164 days), Jena, Louisiana (174 days), and Elizabeth, New Jersey (184 days).
Average wait times tend to be higher for defensive aviary cases than for affirmative asylum cases. This may reflect when the asylum instance started and how backlogged that Court was at this item indicate in time. There is little solid empirical data on how scheduling practices may vary past Court, hearing location, or the judge. Relative await times may also reverberate other intangible factors, such equally how aggressively the aviary seeker wants to expedite their instance or the skills of the asylum seeker's attorney in navigating the Court's scheduling system.
In the New York City Immigration Court, for example, the average wait for affirmative cases is 1,695 days while for defensive cases it is 1,877 days. Withal, in a few Courts, expect times are higher for affirmative asylum cases. This is true, for example, in the Las Vegas Court. Hither the average look is slightly higher for affirmative cases (1,428 days) than for defensive cases (1,352 days). This is also true for the Phoenix Immigration Court where the average expect for affirmative asylum cases (i,476 days) is longer than for defensive cases (one,286 days), and at the San Antonio Court where there is an average wait of 2,121 days for affirmative cases and 1,399 days for defensive cases.
For a complete listing of the asylum backlog at each Clearing Court and average wait times see Table seven.
Table 7. Pending Aviary Cases and Wait Times For FY 2021 by Immigration Court and Case Type
| Clearing Court | Awaiting Asylum Cases* | Average Days Waiting** | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Affirmative | Defensive | Total | Affirmative | Defensive | |
| All | 667,229 | 196,994 | 470,235 | ane,621 | 1,489 | 1,676 |
| Denver | 8,018 | 950 | 7,068 | 1,943 | 1,664 | 1,980 |
| Arlington | 37,087 | 3,116 | 33,971 | ane,934 | i,768 | 1,949 |
| New Orleans | 11,646 | i,503 | ten,143 | 1,930 | i,590 | i,980 |
| Portland | half dozen,122 | 911 | 5,211 | ane,879 | 1,713 | ane,909 |
| Omaha | nine,917 | ane,577 | eight,340 | one,874 | i,523 | one,940 |
| Newark | 37,579 | xix,721 | 17,858 | ane,852 | 1,697 | 2,023 |
| Seattle | x,733 | ane,165 | nine,568 | i,816 | 1,629 | 1,839 |
| New York | 82,875 | 39,535 | 43,340 | ane,790 | i,695 | 1,877 |
| Orlando | 22,701 | 8,953 | 13,748 | 1,760 | 1,723 | 1,784 |
| Baltimore | xx,670 | 2,828 | 17,842 | 1,744 | one,230 | 1,826 |
| San Francisco | 55,831 | eleven,263 | 44,568 | 1,715 | 1,677 | 1,724 |
| Los Angeles | 48,457 | 18,258 | 30,199 | 1,682 | 1,510 | 1,786 |
| Memphis | ix,781 | 1,373 | 8,408 | 1,680 | 1,521 | ane,706 |
| Houston | 19,255 | ii,886 | xvi,369 | i,666 | 1,494 | ane,696 |
| Dallas | 13,786 | 2,939 | 10,847 | 1,665 | one,461 | ane,720 |
| Chicago | 27,066 | ix,929 | 17,137 | ane,631 | ane,395 | 1,769 |
| Van Nuys | 15,809 | 4,437 | 11,372 | 1,617 | ane,374 | one,712 |
| Atlanta | 9,763 | 3,475 | 6,288 | ane,563 | 1,495 | 1,600 |
| Boston | 28,869 | seven,286 | 21,583 | ane,545 | 1,493 | 1,563 |
| San Antonio | nine,330 | 1,570 | 7,760 | i,520 | 2,121 | ane,399 |
| Kansas City | 7,106 | 1,063 | vi,043 | ane,504 | 998 | i,593 |
| Houston - Greenspoint | 12,593 | one,369 | 11,224 | 1,502 | 1,559 | 1,495 |
| Detroit | iii,225 | 1,073 | 2,152 | one,468 | 1,188 | 1,607 |
| Bloomington | vii,904 | 1,603 | 6,301 | one,460 | one,022 | ane,572 |
| Louisville | 4,403 | 411 | iii,992 | 1,437 | i,178 | 1,464 |
| Houston - Gessner | vii,764 | 851 | 6,913 | 1,410 | 1,581 | 1,389 |
| Hartford | four,872 | one,775 | 3,097 | 1,398 | 1,306 | i,450 |
| Las Vegas | four,386 | 863 | 3,523 | ane,367 | i,428 | 1,352 |
| Charlotte | 8,240 | 1,403 | 6,837 | 1,361 | 1,051 | ane,425 |
| Philadelphia | 14,709 | 4,643 | 10,066 | one,359 | 1,283 | 1,394 |
| Imperial | 325 | 52 | 273 | 1,352 | 703 | i,472 |
| New York - NYB | 17,451 | 8,729 | 8,722 | one,344 | 1,274 | 1,414 |
| Phoenix | 6,330 | one,453 | 4,877 | i,330 | ane,476 | 1,286 |
| Cleveland | 7,757 | 2,417 | 5,340 | 1,329 | 1,053 | one,452 |
| Miami | 43,890 | 15,823 | 28,067 | 1,323 | i,232 | 1,374 |
| Saipan | 11 | 0 | 11 | 1,321 | - | 1,321 |
| Atlanta - ATD | 189 | 9 | 180 | 1,185 | 469 | 1,221 |
| El Paso | 2,366 | 198 | 2,168 | 1,091 | 1,053 | i,095 |
| Harlingen | one,753 | 194 | one,559 | 1,080 | 1,269 | 1,043 |
| San Diego | 3,606 | 785 | 2,821 | ane,043 | 936 | one,075 |
| El Paso - EPD | eighteen | 0 | 18 | 909 | - | 909 |
| New York - NYV | 9,251 | 5,231 | iv,020 | 880 | 854 | 914 |
| Los Angeles - North | 6,782 | one,641 | 5,141 | 873 | 599 | 962 |
| Guaynabo | 168 | 129 | 39 | 843 | 823 | 907 |
| Westward Valley | 2,150 | 589 | ane,561 | 832 | 849 | 825 |
| Florence | 31 | 0 | 31 | 724 | - | 724 |
| Buffalo | 817 | 136 | 681 | 681 | 769 | 663 |
| Sacramento | 2,610 | 679 | 1,931 | 673 | 607 | 696 |
| Tucson | 356 | 79 | 277 | 669 | 655 | 673 |
| Honolulu | 120 | 49 | 71 | 566 | 560 | 571 |
| Hagatna | 91 | 59 | 32 | 433 | 324 | 633 |
| Fishkill | iv | 2 | 2 | 355 | 427 | 284 |
| Tacoma | 32 | 0 | 32 | 252 | - | 252 |
| Elizabeth | 25 | 0 | 25 | 184 | - | 184 |
| Jena | 29 | 0 | 29 | 174 | - | 174 |
| Miami - Krome | 49 | one | 48 | 164 | 36 | 167 |
| Lumpkin | 59 | ane | 58 | 159 | three,191 | 101 |
| Napanoch | 3 | 1 | ii | 148 | 91 | 177 |
| Conroe | 70 | 0 | lxx | 145 | - | 145 |
| Adelanto | 34 | 1 | 33 | 121 | 72 | 122 |
| Los Fresnos | x | 0 | 10 | 119 | - | 119 |
| Pearsall | 22 | 0 | 22 | 108 | - | 108 |
| Aurora | 22 | 0 | 22 | 106 | - | 106 |
| Eloy | 90 | ane | 89 | 103 | 102 | 103 |
| Oakdale | 66 | 0 | 66 | 102 | - | 102 |
| Chaparral | 93 | 0 | 93 | 87 | - | 87 |
| Otay Mesa | 9 | 0 | ix | 83 | - | 83 |
| Batavia | 33 | 0 | 33 | 74 | - | 74 |
| Not Assigned to Court | x | vi | 4 | - | - | - |
Find Out More on Asylum Filings, Decisions, and the Asylum Backlog
This report was based upon the information found in ii new TRAC web-query tools. These free user tools permit the public to drill into these findings in greater item by state, hearing location, representation and custody condition, and much more. Gender, age, language, as well as nationality are now also bachelor.
The first new tool tracks the receipt of aviary applications in Immigration Courts since October 2000.[12] This tool monitors these cases over time by the date the aviary awarding was filed, and reports on issue for those aviary seekers whose cases have subsequently been completed. Since not all asylum decisions are closed on their merits with an up or down definitive decision on the asylum claim, the tool includes other types of outcomes where the asylum seeker was judged to be legally permitted to remain in the U.South versus ordered deported.
The second new user tool monitors in greater detail the growing asylum case excess which comprises a substantial and growing proportion of the Courtroom's overall case excess. It too provides details on how long these cases have already been waiting, equally well as how much longer the average wait will be before the next scheduled hearing.
TRAC's asylum decision tool, has as well been recently expanded to add together demographic information on age and gender. Linguistic communication in addition to nationality have been added to the menu choices for users.
Footnotes
[i] There may be more than than one Principal Calendar hearing needed for a case. Hearings can exist continued to a subsequently date for a diverseness of reasons, including: to allow fourth dimension to find an attorney or to prepare the case, considering the Court itself cancelled and rescheduled a hearing, or many other reasons. For those waiting for a Master Calendar hearing just over half of affirmative asylum cases were unrepresented (52%), that is, no attorney had entered their appearance with the Court to represent them. For defensive asylum cases, about a quarter (22%) were similarly unrepresented at this signal.
[two] For a discussion of affirmative versus defensive asylum cases run into TRAC's two-office series on aviary decisions here and here.
[3] TRAC has long chronicled the rise in the overall Immigration Court backlog. See for case "Immigration Excess Still Rising Despite New Guess Investitures" published in 2016, "Despite Hiring, Immigration Court Backlog and Wait Times Climb" and "Clearing Court Filings Accept Nose Swoop, While Court Backlog Increases" published in 2017, "Immigration Court Backlog Jumps While Case Processing Slows" and "Immigration Court Backlog Surpasses Ane Million Cases" published in 2018, "Burdensome Immigration Judge Caseloads and Lengthening Hearing Wait Times" published in 2019, and "Trump Leaves Biden 1.3 Million Example Excess in Clearing Courts." This study is the first empirical written report documenting the role of asylum cases in the ascent of this backlog.
[4] Exclusion orders and deportation orders were used nether older immigration statutes.
[5] Many adult asylum seekers and families may file an asylum application, merely exist awarded other forms of relief such as withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture (Cat). Unaccompanied children (UAC) seeking aviary, except those from Mexico or Canada, while counted in the overall Court backlog don't appear equally part of the Court's aviary backlog. This is because actual applications for aviary for these children are non initially filed with the Immigration Courtroom, but with the USCIS. Since the aviary request was not decided by an Immigration Gauge it does non get recorded in the Court's records as an asylum completion when the Courtroom completes these cases.
[6] Meet earlier footnote 2 for further data nigh affirmative asylum.
[seven] Combining data from 2 separate database systems reflecting actions past different agencies, each with their own idiosyncrasies in how and what is being counted, can never be an exact science. We have relied upon the work of the Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) inside the Section of Homeland Security which is responsive for preparing the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics and reconciling these different agency database systems. The count for Asylum Officeholder grants is largely taken from a tabular array prepared by OIS roofing aviary grants by Asylum Officers. The same tabular array contains asylum grants by Immigration Judges and the two columns of annual figures are added together for a total annual count for aviary grants twelvemonth-by-year. This table has not been updated for FY 2020 or FY 2021, so TRAC estimated the Aviary Officer grants for these 2 years. TRAC relied upon the Court's case-by-case records for Courtroom aviary case outcomes.
[viii] New York and Los Angeles have been separate more than recently into more than a single administrative Court located in the aforementioned city. Meet listing in Tabular array 6. Court addresses are institute here.
[9] This does not include cases handled past the Broadway or Varick locations.
[10] This does not include cases handled by the N Los Angeles locations.
[11] This includes not only cases on which asylum was granted, but cases in which other relief was granted or the Immigration Guess determined that another ground applied which allowed the aviary seeker to remain in the U.Due south. and non exist ordered deported.
[12] Due to the length of time needed after the showtime of the case to file an asylum awarding, this tool underestimates the number of asylum seekers with pending cases since it misses those who have non nonetheless filed their application.
Source: https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/672/
0 Response to "Is Uscis Reviewing Asylum Case of Before 2012"
Post a Comment