Ngwanyia v Ashcroft
Court Rules That US Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services Will Have To Issue Employment Authorizations to Asylees
The court has ruled for the plaintiffs in a class action filed against the U.S. Attorney General and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services on behalf of thousands of individuals granted asylum in the United States between 1994 and 2002 who have yet to have their status changed to that of lawful permanent residents. The action alleged that the federal government failed in its obligation to issue appropriate employment authorization documents to asylees during that time. Persons eligible to take part in the action should contact the Bureau of Citizenship and Integration Services to learn how they may be provided the correct documentation.
He ordered that individuals granted asylum immediately be provided with employment authorization documents and that such documents be valid continuously until such time that their immigration status changes. The court faulted the government's management of the system by which asylees can have their status adjusted to lawful permanent residents and said it failed to use more than 20,000 slots available for the status adjustments. The U.S. Attorney General, under the Refugee Act of 1980, has the option to use up to 10,000 refugee admission numbers a year to adjust asylees already in the United States to the status of lawful permanent residents, a prerequisite for naturalization. However, although the attorney general routinely set aside the 10,000 refugee admission numbers for asylee adjustment, at least 21,822 of those slots went unused between 1994 and 2002, according to the court. It ordered that all unused slots be used for asylee status adjustments.
The court commented that the government's procedures for issuing employment authorization documents to asylees "verge on the Kafkaesque." It went on to say that the government is required to authorize asylees to engage in employment and to provide asylees with documents that appropriately reflect that authorization. However, of the of the type of document an asylee receives--and the length of time for which it is valid--depends on the manner in which the asylee was granted asylum and the district office handling the asylee's request. The court stated that each and every asylee must be provided with work papers, a job Congress placed squarely on the government's immigration agency. It went on to say that there is no statutory justification for differential treatment based on varying procedures for granting asylum.
A final settlement conference is scheduled in the case for March 17, 2004
