No. of Recommendations: 2
I acknowledge that I misspoke. The number is closer to 30% or higher," [Jeh] Johnson told PolitiFact.Thanks, Albaby, I googled, found this, scanned it, and have been reading it for understanding. Heady stuff. I think it needs three reads for understanding. But the footnotes:
[1] As a matter of practice, asylum seekers who cross the border unlawfully are currently typically assigned by DHS to the defensive asylum path in the Immigration Courts, even though their sole purpose for crossing was to affirmatively request asylum. The Biden administration has proposed a change in policy that would provide these asylum seekers with a hearing before USCIS asylum officers. The proposed rule change is explained by former Immigration and Naturalization Service Director Doris Meissner of the Migration Policy Institute here.
[2] Despite the many nuanced legal differences between affirmative and defensive asylum, perhaps the most important practical difference is that affirmative asylum interviews take place in an administrative, non-adversarial (or at least less adversarial) setting with an asylum officer and with the option of having an attorney and interpreter present, but without an opposing counsel. In contrast, defensive asylum hearings take place in an adversarial setting in Immigration Court with an Immigration Judge and an opposing attorney from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I never realized there were two different routes with different settings. Enlightening.
https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/667/
