Bay Window: Please take us through the political asylum process. I have come to the airport without good documentation. I have a forged passport and I am looking for asylum. What happens at the airport?

Charles DeMore: A person walks up to an immigration inspector, presents a fraudulent document, or has no document, that obviously raises a few red flags. They would be referred from the primary inspection booth where they first encountered the immigration inspector to what we call secondary inspection where a more elaborate interview can take place. During the context of that secondary inspection, the officer asks a number of routine type questions. They're built into the process. One of those questions goes to the issue of, are you afraid to go back to the country where you're a national or where you've come from. If the person says yes, there's a logical follow-up question, why? At that time they get to articulate the kinds of things that ultimately will bolster their asylum case. If they have a fear of returning or if the inspector believes that their fear of returning to their country could potentially even meet the most nominal threshold for asylum, they are then referred to a credible fear interview, which is typically conducted 48 hours later before an asylum officer. The reason we wait the 48 hours is typically these people have been travelling many hours, sometimes many days in these very arduous conditions and so we feel that we give them an opportunity to rest, to consult either family members or community-based organizations or an attorney or whomever they chose to consult, and then 48 hours later they come in. They have an interview before an asylum officer. If the asylum officer finds credible fear in any regard, they're issued what's called a notice to appear before an immigration judge, and then ultimately that person has a hearing before a judge who makes the final determination as to whether or not asylum would be appropriately granted.

Bay Window: Where are they the 48 hours before the credible fear hearing?

Charles DeMore: It depends. Typically they're going to be detained in one of the contract facilities that we use, and we have a whole host of them. We probably contract out daily with eight or ten different institutions. They could be detained anywhere in the Bay Area.

Bay Window: Your contract facilities are jails. Is that correct?

Charles DeMore: Basically, yes. Typically they're under the oversight of a sheriff or a county correctional department.

Bay Window: After they go to their credible fear hearing and the asylum officer does not think that they have a credible fear, what happens then?

Charles DeMore: Basically, the same things occurs: the issue of notice to appear before an immigration judge. I've not been part of that process but the asylum officer articulates in his paperwork why he doesn't think this individual has a credible fear and that gives the opportunity for the judge to review the totality of circumstances, the testimony of the applicant, the statements of the officer and then ultimately she or he will render a decision based on that.

Bay Window: When a person comes to SFO and says I'm afraid to return to my country, can someone turn them away at that point without getting them into a credible fear hearing?

Charles DeMore: It's not going to happen. If you're able to express a concern, a fear of returning to the country that you're coming from, to your country of your nationality, you're going to be referred to an asylum officer for a credible fear interview. If someone came in and said I'm afraid to go back to my country, then if a logical follow-up question, why, is answered with something like I don't like the kind of food we have in our country, that may not ultimately result in your getting referred to an asylum officer. But any kind of legitimate fear of returning is generally going to put you in the context of that credible fear interview.

Bay Window: What approach do the asylum officers take in their line of questions?

Charles DeMore: If anything we err on the side of caution. We go over in great detail with our officers what our expectations are. We're not going to refer somebody back that articulates a credible fear of returning. If someone chooses to grab a bottle and begins to stab themselves, you might have to question this person's mental state. We certainly have had people come into our airport that did some unusual things. People who are in custody have done some unusual things, but I would find it hard to imagine that their true motivation was the fact that they thought they were going to be sent back after articulating any kind of reasonable basis that would result in an asylum claim.

Bay Window: Can you name for me where people might be detained in the San Francisco Bay Area?

Charles DeMore: We use a facility in Bakersfield. We use Marin County, Santa Clara County, Oakland City jail and a number of others that vary on a bed available basis.

Bay Window: There are immigration advocates who think that putting detainees with criminals who are in jail is inappropriate.

Charles DeMore: Typically INS detention is separate from mainstream population. It's an interesting issue because people will say that these non-criminals are being detained with criminals. Typically the criminals that they're referring to are people who have matriculated through the California Department of Corrections and now are in an administrative process prior to effect their removal. It would not be much different than saying the American public is exposed to criminals because there are criminals who come out of jail everyday and they're on our streets. These are people who have already served their sentences, their period of incarceration, and now are in an administrative kind of position. Typically these people are very motivated to conclude that administrative process. There are times when people who are asylum applicants may be housed with people who have previously been convicted of crimes and have completed their sentences.

Bay Window: But they're not going to be put in the same cells and places as people who are currently serving time for crimes?

Charles DeMore: No. I think we have pretty well established certain parameters for INS detention that are apart and separate from your main populations that are in these facilities.

Bay Window: Why do I have to go to a jail for two days to wait for my credible fear hearing? Why can't I go to my cousin's house or go to a hotel?

Charles DeMore: A good portion, of these cases, is not ultimately granted. The likelihood of people who don't have a good case surrendering later when requested to do so might be very nominal. We generally detain until at least such time as a credible fear determination is rendered. At that time, generally, we look at the custodial environment, or the parameters of custody in a totally different light. Now we're looking at things like, will you likely prevail in your hearing, are you a danger to the community, are you likely to abscond? We look at all the equities on behalf of the individual and any aggravating circumstances and typically make a custody determination pursuant to that, but that generally takes place after the credible fear interview. That's a major milestone. Until such time as you've had your credible fear interview, we're looking at things like, do we know who you are, are you a criminal that's coming to this country to conduct criminal things, are you a terrorist? It gives us two days to look at your file, to try to ascertain the validity of the equities that you've presented or that you've put forth in your credible fear, or in your initial interview. We reassess at the end of the credible fear interview.

Bay Window: I imagine there's a fear that people are just going to disappear into the woodwork.

Charles DeMore: You've got people presenting themselves at the airport. Keep in mind they either have fraudulent documents or they have no documents, and typically we really don't know who you are. It takes us a little bit of time as an agency to do some background checks. Typically the people have some contacts in the communities. There's some equity there. They tell us up front I've got friends, family, I've got somebody who's going to sponsor me or somebody that's going to support me or help me. Pursuant to that we go out and we start checking and making sure there are, in fact, these equities in the community and that there's somebody who will post a bond and once things start to fall in place, and that takes a couple of days even in the quickest situations. Once we determine that you're not a danger to the community, you're not likely to abscond, you do have equities, we're likely to release you on some kind of bond condition that will likely assure your appearance in a hearing or your surrender for removal if that ultimately has to happen.

Bay Window: Do you know what percentage of people stay in detention and what percentage are released?

Charles DeMore: I would say we release the majority. I don't have the exact numbers. Once a credible fear determination is made, if the individual has equities, if there are not significant identity issues, there are no criminal issues to overcome a prudent issue to release, we generally release. Typically that would be under some kind of bond condition that we think would insure their appearance later.

Bay Window: Are there any laws or regulations about the maximum number of days a person could be detained?

Charles DeMore: I'm not aware of any outside parameter. The law permits the detention of people who are applicants for admission until such time as either they satisfy the agency that they are admissible or at such time as the agency chooses, with discretion, to release. If you're in a very prolonged litigation, you could be in a prolonged detention.

Bay Window: Can you talk about the importance of the San Francisco airport as a port of entry?

Charles DeMore: In 1997, roughly 798,000 people immigrated to the United States. Of that, over 50,000, about 7.5% immigrated to the Bay Area. 70% of new immigrants chose to or have an intention of residing in one of six states which includes California. The number of people immigrating, the countries that produce the greatest number of immigrants are also countries that are very disproportionately high asylum producers. China and Vietnam and certain countries that have historically produced a lot of refugees or asylees are among those countries that have the largest number of people that are immigrating to Northern California. If you think about roughly 7.5% of all new immigrants coming to the Bay Area, it has a dramatic impact on this area and our lives.

Bay Window: How do you deal with language problems at the airport when people are coming from all over the world?

Charles DeMore: We certainly have a lot of language assets among our own staff. We have a very diverse workforce. If you look at our staff, it's probably about diverse as any you'll ever see. So we have a lot of language resources here. We also rely very much on the airlines, on the other federal agencies, and at times we use commercially available translation services. Typically between the airlines, our own staff, and the other federal agencies, we're able to accomplish most of what we need to accomplish.

Bay Window: If we're putting people in detention who say they are fleeing from their own country because of fear, aren't we treating them like criminals?

Charles DeMore: I don't think so. I think we have a tremendous responsibility as an agency to preserve and safeguard the interest of the American people, of the immigrants who are lawfully present, literally of everybody in this country. If we have people walking into our airports, we have no idea who they are, I don't think it would be prudent to put them out on the street given the threat of terrorism that we know exists in the world. I don't think it criminalizes the process. I think it protects and safeguards the interests of the communities that we serve.

back to top