Washington (CNN) - When Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled that domestic violence and gang victims are not likely to qualify for asylum in the US, he undercut potentially tens of thousands of claims each year for people seeking protection.

But in a footnote of his ruling, Sessions also telegraphed a desire for more sweeping, immediate reinterpretations of US asylum law that could result in turning people away at the border before they ever see a judge.

Sessions wrote that since "generally" asylum claims on the basis of domestic or gang violence "will not qualify for asylum," few claims will meet the "credible fear" standard in an initial screening as to whether an immigrant can pursue their claim before a judge. That means asylum seekers may end up being turned back at the border, a major change from current practice.

"When you put it all together, this is his grand scheme to just close any possibility for people seeking protection -- legally -- to claim that protection that they can under the law," said Ur Jaddou, a former chief counsel at US Citizenship and Immigration Services now at immigration advocacy group America's Voice. "He's looking at every possible way to end it. And he's done it one after the other."

The Trump administration has focused on asylum claims -- a legal way to stay in the US under domestic and international law -- characterizing them as a "loophole" in the system. The problem, they say, is many claims are unsuccessful, but in the meantime as immigrants wait out a lengthy court process, they are allowed to live and work in the US and build lives there, leading some to go into hiding.

Experts estimate that most of the migrants from Central America who claim asylum at the southern border are fleeing violence committed by someone other than the government, like gangs or abusive individuals -- exactly the type of claim that will be rejected after Sessions' Monday ruling.

For the impact at the credible fear stage to take effect, it will have to be carried out by USCIS, which handles the initial asylum claim processing.

USCIS spokesman Michael Bars said Sessions' decision "will be implemented as soon as possible."

"Asylum and credible fear claims have skyrocketed across the board in recent years largely because individuals know they can exploit a broken system to enter the US, avoid removal, and remain in the country. This exacerbates delays and undermines those with legitimate claims," Bars said.
"USCIS is carefully reviewing proposed changes to asylum and credible fear processing whereby every legal means is being considered to protect the integrity of our immigration system from fraudulent claims," he added.

The Trump administration has pointed to the numbers of ultimately unsuccessful claims as evidence of bad faith in the asylum system, and Sessions repeatedly has discussed clearing the way for "legitimate" claims to succeed, though he has not explained how a claim could be known as illegitimate before it is heard.

The credible fear threshold is set to consider that many of the immigrants may speak little English, have little to no legal understanding or education, may fear governmental authorities based on their home countries and may be traumatized from their journey. Roughly 80% of asylum seekers pass that screening, though a smaller share of them eventually achieve asylum.

With tens of thousands of immigrants apprehended crossing the border illegally or showing up at a port of entry without authorization each month, officers applying a new test could immediately start turning back thousands of immigrants, who would likely not know they could pursue their cases before a judge if they asked to, and likely would not have access to legal representation to defend them.

Such an impact would be challenging for immigrant advocates to address quickly. Litigation would almost certainly follow, but it would be difficult to assess at first how many thousands of migrants would be rejected and sent back to the violence they were fleeing.

"The present leadership of USCIS would probably be politically inclined to do that," said Stephen Legomsky, a law professor at Washington University School of Law and a former chief counsel of USCIS and senior counselor at DHS. "(It) will probably kill off a very large number of asylum claims, and that means a very large number of people will be sent back to conditions where their lives threatened by violence."

Broader changes

In other footnotes, Sessions also hints at broader changes to asylum he sees within the law.

In one, Sessions suggests that families may not qualify as groups under asylum law -- though he notes he can't rule on that on this particular case.

The last footnote would have implications for every kind of asylum claim. Sessions argues that asylum is itself "discretionary" -- meaning that even if an applicant meets the eligibility requirements, they should have to prove on top of that why they deserve asylum.

Sessions suggests that if an asylum seeker passed through another country and didn't seek asylum there, or came into the US illegally, those could be factors that a judge could use to reject asylum.

Legomsky argued that placing such a burden on an asylum seeker -- especially as many of them don't have access to a lawyer and are not given one by the government -- could be prohibitive for many.

​Those changes would likely work their way through the courts for years before they could finally be implemented.

You can view this article from CNN here as well. 

For more information about Sessions's announcements, take a look at these articles: 
"Sessions excludes domestic, gang violence from asylum claims" from the St. Louis Post Dispatch
"Trump admin drops protections for domestic violence victims" from CNN
"Sessions says Domestic and Gang Violence are not grounds for Asylum" from The New York Times 

KIRKWOOD • Members of Eliot Unitarian Chapel voted to become a sanctuary church, joining a Maplewood congregation that has been housing a Honduran man since September.

“Eliot Chapel is prepared to shelter an undocumented person or family vulnerable to deportation if we are approached to do so. We encourage other faith communities to join us,” said the Rev. Barbara Gadon, lead minister.

“Our congregation stands with undocumented people in protesting the immoral laws and practices that tear families apart,” Gadon said.

David Cox, outgoing president of the Eliot Chapel board of trustees and an immigration attorney said: “The value of rule by law is deeply held in the United States. As a lawyer, it is sacred to me. But this value assumes that the laws will be moral, enshrine due process over arbitrariness, and above all, they will not confine their protection to the privileged. Today, our immigration system has forfeited any right to obedience by the arbitrary and capricious methods it uses to destroy families and target the powerless.”

Eliot’s decision last month, made public Tuesday, comes nearly nine months after Christ Church United Church of Christ in Maplewood opened its doors to Alex Garcia, who has been living in a makeshift apartment there to avoid deportation.

Garcia came to the United States from Honduras 14 years ago, looking for work and for an escape from an unstable country. He found a job in Poplar Bluff, Mo., got married and began building a family. But he had entered the country illegally.

Garcia first tried to cross into the U.S. in 2000 when he was 19. He was caught by Border Patrol agents and issued an order of removal. Four years later, he tried again, this time successfully. He remained under the radar of immigration officials until 2015. That’s when Garcia accompanied his sister to an immigration check-in appointment at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Kansas City. After questioning him, investigators linked Garcia to the 2000 deportation order, which was still in effect.

Twice, Garcia got a one-year reprieve to stay in the country. But last summer, under President Donald Trump’s administration, his third request was denied. He was told in September to report to an ICE office to be sent back to Honduras.

Instead, with the help of immigration advocates, Garcia showed up at the Maplewood church, where he has been living ever since. His wife and five children, all U.S. citizens, remain in Poplar Bluff but visit Garcia at least twice a month.

In 2011, ICE enacted a policy designating “sensitive locations” where officials would not likely enforce immigration laws. The locations include churches, schools and hospitals. But the agency makes it clear in the policy that no place is a complete haven.

Gadon and members of the Eliot Chapel have helped Christ Church in supporting Garcia, joining a group of volunteers who sign up for shifts to stay with Garcia around the clock. They are there to serve as a witness in the event immigration officials show up. The Eliot congregation is now seeking support in its sanctuary efforts.
“Come help us,” said Paula Fulks, an Eliot member. “We need strong hearts, open minds, and willing givers to create a haven of support and harmony for the next sanctuary seeker. We don’t know when our neighbor will call on us for shelter, but we want to be ready when they do.”

You can view this article from the St. Louis Post Dispatch here as well. 
For more information about Alex Garcia and the MICA Project's involvement with his case, see our Let Alex Stay page. 

Immigration advocates accused the U.S. government on Thursday of "effectively disappearing" hundreds of children in a complaint over the widespread separation of families crossing the southern border.

The groups filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which investigates alleged human rights abuses in North and South America.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced May 7 that the Justice Department would begin to prosecute every person accused of illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Hundreds of families have been separated since then. An official from U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently told Congress that 638 adults had been referred for prosecution between May 6 and May 19, bringing with them 658 children.

By comparison, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which shelters unaccompanied immigrant children, said in April that it had approximately 700 cases since October in which the parents were believed to be in federal custody.

Immigration lawyers and advocates say parents are being held in jail without knowing where their children are.
Efren Olivares, a lawyer with the Texas Civil Rights Project, which filed the complaint, said the U.S. government's separating of families is "clearly in violation of international law."

"No developed democracy in the world separates children and parents just because they came into the country," he said.

The Women's Refugee Commission and the University of Texas School of Law's immigration clinic also joined the complaint.

In one case outlined in the complaint, Border Patrol agents in South Texas arrested a 40-year-old man from Guatemala with his 12-year-old son. The complaint says the man was placed in a detention cell while his son was kept outside. By the time the man was taken out of the cell, the boy was gone.

A lawyer working on the man's case called the government hotline for locating immigrant children in custody. According to the complaint, the boy's information was not in the system. The lawyer and the father don't know where he is.

Advocates say they hope the complaint will lead the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to ask the government for more information about how it's keeping track of families after separating them. The American Civil Liberties Union has also filed a federal lawsuit challenging family separation.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a statement that it is "committed to connecting these family members as quickly as possible after separation," and that it will work with the Department of Health and Human Services to "set up regular communication and removal coordination, if necessary."
​
Neither Health and Human Services nor Customs and Border Protection responded to requests for comment.


You can view this article from the St. Louis Post Dispatch here as well.

​Trump’s administration just made the formal announcement that DACA will be phased out over the next few months.  DACA allows 800,000 young people around the country to work, pursue their education, and support their families.  These courageous people gave the government all of their personal information, paid government fees, went through background checks, and submitted stacks of evidence to prove their eligibility.  Now, the government is turning its back on them.
 
And now we each have to answer a question: Will we turn our backs on the immigrants who complete our communities?
 
At the MICA Project, we have pledged to stand together as a community, with our communities.  With DACA recipients, their families, and their neighbors.  We are standing to say that hate does not have a home here.  We proclaim that we are in this together, and our country is weaker when we divide people into “us” and “them.”
 
This week we’ll be calling our clients who have DACA.  We’ll be meeting with the community to answer questions about the legal effects.  And we’ll be mobilizing to support the courageous activists who confront this injustice and continue the fight for ALL of those who call this place home.
 
We need you to stand with us.  Raise your voice in support of immigrants.  Speak out against hate.  And please consider supporting our efforts, if you are able, with a donation.

Alaa Alderie sought refuge in the United States several years ago, not long after Syrian authorities started looking for him because of his involvement in political demonstrations against President Bashar Al-Assad.

In 2012, he and his parents came to St. Louis, where his brother had arrived earlier, finding success in their new home. Alderie, who is Muslim, considers himself a “lucky refugee.” 
But because President Donald Trump has banned refugees from six Muslim-majority countries, Alderie worries that people fleeing similar circumstances now won’t be allowed to a similar opportunity to seek political asylum.

Trump’s executive order bars travelers and refugees from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
“That's so sad,” Alderie said. “When you feel like you are targeted in your own country and you cannot go anywhere else outside your country.”

When the Trump administration announced the travel ban in January, there was mass chaos at U.S. airports. Immigration lawyers and advocates from around the country rallied to support refugees.

The administration’s revised policy blocks people from the six countries who cannot prove a bona fide relationship with a U.S. citizen or entity. Qualifying family members include spouses, parents, siblings, children and — because of a court challenge — grandparents. The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the administration to strictly enforce the ban pending a review by a federal appeals court; the high court’s justices are expected to rule on it in October.

While the issue works its way through the courts, Alderie, a permanent U.S. resident, fears for the safety of his family still in Syria — including his older brother.

“I would do whatever it takes to get at least my brother and the other members of my family but it seems like something impossible,” he said. “I tried everything. I even wrote to the White House one day and I'm trying but it seems like there is no hope.”

Since the ban was announced, local refugees have sought legal advice from immigration lawyers about how it would affect their families.

James Hacking III, a St. Louis immigration lawyer, said he thinks Trump’s executive order should be struck down because it discriminates against Muslims.

“The president has, through his statements, made clear that he's banning people based on religion without any kind of individualized analysis of this person and whether or not their relationship with their family member is good and whether they are good people who deserve to come to the United States,” he said.

‘Die or wait to die’

Alderie, 34, wants to see more refugees allowed to enter the United States in part because he has lived through Syria’s disintegration. In Damascus, where he was a banker, Alderie’s day-to-day life was fraught with danger.
As the war-torn city crumbled around him, Alderie said, he saw his income cut by 75 percent, saw sporadic electricity outages and low water supplies.

“Life in the country has reached a point where everything is just dark. You feel the war and you hear the sounds (of the bombs) and then someone close to you dies,” he said. “The situation is very sad. Every two days you say goodbye to a friend or you hear of somebody who died. The war is ugly.

“The options now for Syrians are they either die or wait to die, one of the two. And the situation is really depressing for any Syrian.”

Since the travel ban has been in place, refugee resettlement in St. Louis has slowed.

In the year that ended in September, 1,260 refugees settled in St. Louis, according to International Institute of St. Louis. Since then, 662 refugees arrived, but half had settled in the city before January, when the ban took effect.

The International Institute had planned to hire someone to assist refugees, but that plan is now on hold.
​
That disappoints Washington University law student Shadi Alkhazaaleh, who applied for the job. Alkhazaaleh is from the northern part of Jordan near the Syrian border, where that country’s civil war began in 2011. He empathizes with many fleeing their homelands.

“I know just from hearing the bombing and all the stuff I felt really horrible. Imagine the people living there, so just making them feel comfortable is something really important,” Alkhazaaleh said.

Bringing life to the city  

Alderie said he thinks it’s a shame that fewer refugees are arriving in St. Louis. He and his family own Cham Bakery — the city’s first pita bread distributor. He said immigrants often bring life to the community and fill gaps in the market.

“We pay our taxes; we do our duties like any other American,” Alderie said. “At the end of the year, we pay for the schools, public roads and other things. We help the city that took us in and hopefully in the future we will keep helping.”

Refugio “Suerte” de San Luis Temo que Refugios Similares Ahora No
Tengan a Donde Recurrir
​
Alaa Alderie buscaba refugio en San Luis hace varios años, poco tiempo después de que autoridades sirias empezaron buscarlo debido a su participación en manifestaciones políticas en contra del Presidente Bashar Al-Assad.

En 2012, él y sus padres llegaron en San Luis, donde su hermano había llegado anteriormente, y tenían éxito en su casa nueva. Alderie, quien es musulmán, se considera a si mismo “un refugio suerte”. Pero dado que Presidente Donald Trump ha prohibido a refugios de seis países en los que la mayoría de la población es musulmana, Alderie se preocupa que la gente que huyen de circunstancias similares no se dejará oportunidades
similares para buscar asilo político.

El orden executivo de Trump prohíbe a viajeros y refugios de Irán, Libia, Somalia, Siria, y Yemen. “Es bastante triste,” Alderie dijo. “Cuando te sientes como eres blanco de acoso en su propio país y no pueden irse a ningún sitio fuera de tu país.”

Cuando la administración de Trump declaró la prohibición de viajar en enero, había caos de masas en aeropuertos estadounidenses. Abogados de inmigración y defensores de todo el país se reunieron en apoyo de los refugios.

La política revisada por la administración prohíbe a personas de los seis países que no pueden probar una relación autentica con un ciudadano o entidad estadounidense. Familiares cualificados incluye esposos, padres, hermanos, hijos y—ya que una objeción legal—abuelos. El tribunal supremo estadounidense ha permitido la administración imponer de una manera estricta la prohibición en espera de una revista del tribunal federal de apelación; se espera que los jueces van a tomar una decisión en diciembre.

Mientras el desafío avanza por los tribunales, Alderie, un residente permanente de los EEUU, tiene miedo por la seguridad de su familia que se queda en Siria—incluso su hermano mayor.

“Haría lo que sea necesario para tener por lo menos mi hermano y los otros miembros de mi familia, pero me parece imposible,” él dijo. “Trataba todo. Hasta escribí a la Casa Blanca un día y estoy intentando, pero no me parece que haya esperanza.”

Desde la prohibición se anunció, refugios del barrio han pedido consejo legal de abogados de inmigración en relación a la manera en la que afectará a sus familias.
​
James Hacking III, un abogado de inmigración en San Luis, dice que cree que el orden executivo de Trump debería revocarse porque discrimina musulmanes.

“El presidente, por sus declaraciones, ha aclarado que prohíbe a la gente basado en la religión sin ningún tipo de análisis individualizado de esta persona y si su relación con su familia es real y si son personas buenas que merecen la oportunidad de inmigrar a los EEUU,” él dijo.

“Morir, o esperar para morir”

Alderie, 34, quiere que más refugios estén permitido entrar a los EEUU ya que él ha aguantado la desintegración de Siria. En Damascus, donde él era banquero, su vida diaria era plagada de peligros. Como la ciudad devastada por la guerra se desmoronó alrededor de él, Alderie dijo, su salario disminuyó por 75% y el enfrentó a cortes esporádicos de electricidad y reservas bajas de agua.

​“La vida en el país ha alcanzado un punto en lo que todo es oscuro. Te sientes la guerra y oyes el ruido de las bombas y luego alguien intimo contigo muere,” él dijo. “La situación es muy triste. Cada dos días te despides a un compañero u oyes que alguien ha muerto. La guerra es fea.”

“Ahora las opciones de sirianos son morir o esperar para morir, una de las dos. Y la situación es muy depresiva por todos los sirianos.”

Desde la prohibición de viajar se implementó, el reasentamiento de refugios en San Luis ha disminuido.
​
Dentro del año que termina en septiembre, 1260 refugios se instalaron en San Luis, según la Institución Internacional de San Luis. Desde entonces, 662 refugios llegaron, pero la mitad se había instalado en San Luis antes del enero, cuando la prohibición tuvo efecto.

La Institución Internacional había planeado para contratar a alguien para asistir a los refugios, pero ese plan ahora está suspendido.

Esto desilusiona a estudiante de derecho de Washington University Shadi Alkhazaaleh, quien solicitó el puesto. Alkhazaaleh es de la parte norte de Jordán cerca de la frontera siriana, donde la guerra civil de ese país empezó en 2011.

Empatiza con ellos que huyen de su patria. “Se sencillamente de escuchar a los bombardeos y todos que me sentía horrible. Imagina la gente que vive allá…garantizar que ellos sienten cómodos es muy importante,” Alkhazaaleh dijo.

Llevar vida a la ciudad

Alderie dijo que cree que es una lástima que menos refugios están llegando en San Luis. El y su familia son dueños de Panadería Cham—el primer distribuidor de pan pita. Dijo que inmigrantes frecuentemente animan la ciudad y ocupan posiciones del mercado.

“Nosotros pagamos nuestros impuestos; cumplimos con nuestras obligaciones como el resto de los estadounidenses,” Alderie dijo. “Al fin del ano, nosotros pagamos por las escuelas, calles públicas, y otras cosas. Ayudan a la ciudad que nos adoptó y con suerte en el futuro continuaremos ayudar.”