“Am I Going to Be Here My Whole Life?”
Testimonies and Consequences of Asylum Bans on People in Immigration Detention in New Mexico
Report by Jordan McMurtry
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report includes qualitative interview data collected from 17 asylum seekers detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at Torrance County Detention Facility, Cibola County Correctional Center, and Otero County Processing Center in rural New Mexico. Interviews were conducted from late September 2024 to early October 2024 at Cibola County Correctional Center and Torrance County Detention Center. When in-person visits were not possible, interviews were conducted over the phone. The 17 individuals are from eight countries in Central America, South America, and West Africa and entered the United States as early as February 2024. Interviews were conducted with major concerns being the consequences of Biden’s asylum bans (May 2023 Circumvention of Lawful Pathways, June 2024 Proclamation on Securing the Border) and general detention conditions. 9 individuals entered the United States before this latest ban to asylum, while the other 8 individuals entered afterwards and were subject to the June 2024 Securing the Border Proclamation.
Findings
Findings reflect a few major themes. Biden’s asylum bans (May 2023 Circumvention of Lawful Pathways, June 2024 Proclamation on Securing the Border) operate under a framework of deterrence and in doing so, drastically increase the dangers and challenges already facing people seeking asylum in the United States. Throughout the many stages of seeking asylum, arguably the most significant consequence of Biden’s policies include how the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) CBP One app effectively delays access to the process itself, as well as any access to resources that might otherwise mitigate the harms of such delays. For some, Biden’s June 2024 Proclamation on Securing the Border asylum ban prevented access to the asylum process altogether. For others, these delays prolonged their exposure to precarious situations both while waiting for appointments to enter the United States and when in detention. The consequent serious violations of due process to asylum are concerning. The degree to which these occur is not negligent, but rather blatant in how they shape the asylum experience in the United States. Examples of explicit disregard for due process were observed by the lack of adequate interpretation services, misinformation surrounding deportation orders, and the inhumane denial of basic needs while under both CBP and ICE detention custody. The lives of asylum seekers have been entirely suspended by the May 2023 and June 2024 asylum bans. Delays occur across several stages in the asylum process, most notably endangering individuals and families through prolonged exposure to dangerous circumstances both from waiting in Mexico to enter the United States and waiting in detention. This study captures this dynamic through qualitative interview data.
The author of this report concludes that these asylum bans operate as mechanisms for legal violence as they both normalize and produce cumulative injuries against individuals seeking to assert their right to asylum(1). Additionally, these bans maintain an ethos of suspicion that positions asylum seekers as potential threats throughout the process so that the act of migration is criminalized. This criminalization of migration violates international law and is further enshrined within the spatial and environmental dimensions of detention where restricted movement and uncertainty characterize the carceral settings of the facilities where individuals are held while
1 See “Legal Violence: Immigration Law and the Lives of Central American Immigrants” (2012) by Cecilia Menjívarand Leisy Abrego.
they await their asylum decisions. The effect of the ethos of suspicion plays out in policies that ultimately suspend lives entirely, as in order to meet the selective requirements of current United States asylum law, individuals withstand long periods of administrative waiting. The extended periods of waiting that individuals experience is an example of legal violence and is an indirect form of harm that prolongs individuals’ exposure to precarious situations while their asylum claim is assessed. Individuals find themselves in states of limbo and uncertainty(2) as they await permission to seek refuge. Interview data in this report demonstrates not only the capacity for violence against asylum seekers by current policy, but also the capacity for individuals to endure the consequences of United States immigration policy in their efforts to establish their right to refuge and safety.
INTRODUCTION
All three of New Mexico’s immigrant detention centers are located in rural parts of the state. Torrance County Detention Facility, Cibola County Correctional Center, and Otero County Processing Center are three of over 200 facilities in the United States where asylum seekers are detained while undergoing expedited removal proceedings. In the first five months of the June 2024 Circumvention of Lawful Pathways asylum ban, only 13 percent of people were screened and found eligible for asylum. This demonstrates how the vast majority of people were eliminated from asylum consideration at the preliminary screening stage; AILA furthers that “preliminary screening should not impose a more stringent standard than the full merits standard applied in court.”(3) Nationally, ICE removed nearly 68,000 individuals during the third quarter of FY2024, an increase from the previous quarter. This is a 69% increase over removals during the third quarter in FY2023 and is more than 140% of ICE removals for all FY2023.(4) This is no doubt reflective of the multiple asylum bans in effect, depriving access to the asylum system. In May 2023, Biden issued the final rule on Circumvention of Lawful Pathways. This policy followed the end of Title 42, a public health rule that turned asylum seekers away at southern terrestrial and coastal borders during the COVID emergency. The Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule maintained restrictive immigration policies, requiring that individuals seeking asylum in the United States either enter via an appointment made with the CBP One mobile application or demonstrate limited exceptions to the ban. In order to request a CBP One appointment to enter the United States, most individuals need to be located in northern and central Mexico while they wait for availability, with limited access to appointments for those located in southern Mexico. With well-documented interpretation and technological errors, this application causes significant barriers to the right to asylum and is particularly challenging for those that do not speak or comprehend one of the three offered languages(5). The number of individuals authorized to enter the United States to pursue their asylum case remains heavily limited based on the consecutive number of encounters at the southern border per week under the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule.
5 See Respond: Crisis Translation Report (April 2024) by Leila Lorenzo, Laura Wagner, Ariel Koren and Juan Camilo Mendez
4 ICE enforcement and removal statistics for Q2, Q3 of FY 2024 reflect nearly 70% increase over Q3 of FY 2023
3 See AILA “Policy Brief: Analysis of Final Rule on ‘Securing the Border’” (October 2024)
2 See Suspended Lives: Navigating Everyday Violence in the US Asylum System (Haas 2023).
In June 2024, Biden issued the Proclamation on Securing the Border. This presidential directive temporarily bans an individual’s right to asylum if they present at a port of entry without a CBP One appointment, or enter the US without inspection (typically one of the only accessible ways for asylum seekers to gain access to the US and gain the ability to seek asylum, which requires physical presence inside the country). It also issues a “shout clause,” where individuals that do not explicitly express a fear of removal are not entitled to entering the asylum process by obtaining an interview to determine a credible fear determination. An update to the proclamation was issued September 30, 2024, deeming the regulatory changes to asylum law to be ‘final.’ The Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule (May 2023 asylum ban) and the Proclamations on Securing the Border (June 2024 asylum ban, and its September 30 final rule) have been met with several legal challenges because they effectively ban legal rights to asylum enshrined under both international and domestic law and as such are the focus of this report.
This report draws from qualitative interview data from individuals directly impacted by the asylum policies implemented by the Biden administration. In-depth interviews are arranged with 17 individuals seeking asylum in the United States. Individuals were seeking asylum from countries in Central America, South America, and West Africa; all but three individuals spoke Spanish, while the others spoke French and Portuguese. Interviews followed an interview guide and were focused on how individuals experienced the consequences of current asylum practices in the United States, as well as general conditions experienced in detention.
DATA CONCERNS REGARDING THE MAY 2023 CIRCUMVENTION OF LAWFUL PATHWAYS ASYLUM BAN
Failures of the CBP One Mobile Application
Attempting to enter the United States through the CBP One appointment system has proven to fail people seeking asylum time and time again. The individuals’ testimonies reveal that CBP One is not reasonably accessible for various reasons: indefinite waiting without receiving an appointment, consequent prolonged exposure to precarious situations in Mexico, the application’s limited language services and technological difficulties.
Waiting Without A CBP One Appointment
Of those interviewed, 16 individuals discussed their experiences with the CBP One mobile application. From this group, 9 individuals were able to use the mobile application to seek an appointment with CBP to enter the United States. On average, this group waited nearly 3 months for an appointment before the conditions they were experiencing in Mexico became so dangerous that they feared for their safety and were compelled to enter the United States without inspection. The longest time an individual was able to wait for a CBP One appointment was 7.5 months and he still had not received a date for entry prior to entering without inspection. 7 individuals did not use the application. Of this group, 4 did not know what the CBP One mobile application was and so they were not informed it was required of them; one man from Brazil even shared that he was “practically learning about it now” when the interview for this report took place. Another man knew what CBP One was, but due to concerns for his own safety, as well as a lack of financial support, was unable to stay in Mexico to wait for an appointment to be made. One man from the Dominican Republic shared that he was aware of the application, but had been misled about who it was intended for. When he was staying with other migrants in Mexico, he was told that the application was only for Venezuelans and Cubans. As a result, he thought he was either ineligible or exempted from needing to use the mobile application. Another respondent shared that he attempted to make an appointment with the application, but when the application display began to malfunction, he decided to enter the United States as making an appointment did not appear possible.
Prolonged Exposure to Dangers in Mexico and Subsequent Consequences
Respondents shared that they entered the United States without a scheduled CBP One appointment because conditions they experienced in Mexico provoked significant fear for their safety if they stayed any longer. As noted above, individuals wanted to wait to enter the United States so that they could maintain asylum eligibility and act in accordance with current policies. However, the conditions they experienced while waiting for a CBP One appointment in Mexico were so dire that these individuals could wait no longer as their lives and the lives of their family members had already been placed in significant danger. Respondents expressed that their lives would continue to be placed in precarious situations if they stayed in Mexico for too long. Expecting individuals to wait in Mexico for a CBP One appointment to be scheduled is cruel as individuals expressed experiences of extortion, assault, kidnapping, and forced labor.
When expecting an appointment in Mexico, one individual was kidnapped with his wife and young children. He shared that his kidnappers threatened him and asked for money he did not have. Another individual had been working in Mexico as he awaited a CBP One appointment when he was kidnapped by a cartel on his way to Monterrey. This individual subsequently left the region with his wife and children to surrender to immigration authorities in Ciudad Juarez, assuming that they would be granted safety in El Paso and the dangerous situation that they found themselves in while waiting for a CBP One appointment would be managed by local authorities. It was not, and the family was forced to enter without inspection. As a result, this individual was rendered ineligible for asylum, despite the incredible danger he and other migrants experience in Mexico.
Diego, an individual from Ecuador, found himself in a particularly difficult situation. He had been waiting for a CBP One appointment in Mexico City for 3 months before he was kidnapped with his wife and children in Durango. The family was extorted and unable to leave for over a month. He explained that his captors had no heart, not caring that Diego was traveling with children. His captors also stole his belongings. With his passport and documentation taken from him, he expressed concern that the particular dilemma he has found himself in might result in his indefinite detention. Uncertain of his future, Diego shared the following:
My question is how long can someone be detained here before being free? Since I was kidnapped, [my captors] took all my documentation when I was in Mexico. When [the United States] talked to my home country– the Ecuador consulate– they did not find a match [for me]. It is like I am not from Ecuador either. They told me that I am going to be here for a long time. . . Am I going to be here my whole life?
Diego is essentially stateless, not recognized from his country of origin through administrative error and not able to access the asylum system in the United States. His circumstances are a result of enduring dangerous conditions in Mexico that led to his consequent kidnapping and loss of personal documentation while he waited for a CBP One appointment. This situation brings to light a cruelty in the expectation that individuals wait in dangerous conditions to maintain their asylum eligibility. Consequently, Diego finds himself in an incredibly precarious situation as he cannot be deported to a country that does not recognize his existence and he has no ability toprove who he is without proper documentation.
Mauricio was traveling through Mexico when he was kidnapped and separated from his partner by Mexican immigration officers when he was waiting for a CBP One appointment. When Mauricio was caught recording his captors with his phone, he was threatened and told that they would cut his finger off if he was unable to pay a significant sum of money. His father in Venezuela had to sell his car to send him the required funds so that he would be released from his captors. Mauricio never received an appointment to enter the United States and was prompted to enter the United States due to this dangerous encounter. Additionally, he heard that the border would be closing with the imminent June 2024 presidential election in Mexico. After waiting in northern Mexico City for an appointment to enter the United States for over two months, Mauricio was ultimately forced to present himself at the border. His concern for his well-being was heightened as a border closure would only increase his likelihood of encountering similar dangers once more. Additionally, he had lost personal documents and resources when he was kidnapped, so family members living in the United States urged him to consider how a potential border closure (due to the elections in Mexico) would exhaust his already limited resources.
Another individual, Daniel, was threatened and forced to work when he and his wife were in Mexico City waiting for a CBP One appointment. When he arrived in Mexico City, he began working at a bar when his employer threatened to kill him if he did not continue working for him after some serious demands. Daniel had been misled and his work expected him to beat up individuals that owed his employer money, something that he refused to do. After several incidents where the business he worked for would assault debtors, Daniel decided that it was in the best interest of his and his wife’s safety to surrender to immigration officials at the United States border without a CBP One appointment. Daniel got stopped several times and had to pay a significant sum of money to different Mexican law enforcement groups to continue towards the border with the United States. Daniel described his journey northward: “pay police, pay immigration, pay police, pay immigration.”
Limited Languages Offered
Another critical issue with the CBP One mobile application includes its limited language offerings. As of December 2024, the application only provides its services in three languages: English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole.
A Portuguese-speaking respondent revealed that only during the interview for this report did he learn about CBP One Application. Given that there is no Portuguese offering on the CBP One application, it is possible he never received notice of policy changes and requirements to use CBP One. The lack of awareness about the application suggests a critical consequence where the May 2023 policy failed this Portuguese speaker. This individual was effectively penalized for not speaking Spanish nor having access to interpretation services to learn about CBP One in the first place. Simply put, CBP One is not accessible for those that do not speak a language offered by the application.
A French-speaking respondent from West Africa stated that he did not see an option for French when he entered the United States in May 2024. He was not able to use the mobile application in a language he understood and attempted to use assistance from Spanish language seekers in using the application to schedule an appointment with CBP. However, this effort was to no serious avail, and he eventually felt compelled to enter the United States to avoid dangerous conditions as he feared for his life while waiting in Mexico for an appointment.
Technological Difficulties
One individual shared that the CBP One mobile application display was not functioning properly. When he attempted to use the application to create an appointment in late May 2024, he shared all his necessary personal information. However, after doing so, the application display did not respond. He was attempting to use a map feature when an apparent glitch prevented him from being able to use the mobile application at all. Without the application working, the individual could not access the method of entry into the United States required by Biden’s May 2023 asylum ban. Given that these circumstances occurred due to a technological error, it appears that this individual was never provided access to a lawful pathway to enter the United States.
CONCERNS REGARDING THE JUNE 2024 PROCLAMATION ON SECURING THE BORDER, AND THE SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL RULE
Eight individuals in this report entered the United States after the Biden Administration issued the June 2024 Proclamation on Securing the Border. The June 2024 ban expands on measures issued by the administration’s May 2023 and notably creates a ‘shout test’ where asylum seekers are required to ‘manifest’ a fear of removal without being asked before they can then be referred to the asylum process by obtaining a credible fear interview (a preliminary screening process asylum seekers are subjected to, performed by a low level bureaucrat, before they are permitted to access the asylum system).
Individuals Are Not Given A Chance To Demonstrate Credible Fear
Interviews demonstrated that many individuals were not aware of the ‘shout test’ requirement established in June 2024. One respondent shared that she did not think that other individuals were aware of the requirement to express their fear of removal and believed that at least one of her peers at Otero County Processing Center had been deported without a credible fear interview. Another respondent shared that he felt quite sure that if he did not state his fear to return to his country of origin, that he likely would not have been given a credible fear interview. Manuel, a Spanish-speaker from the Dominican Republic, shared that when he arrived at Cibola County Correctional Center he was presented with paperwork in English. When staff told him that they did not speak any Spanish, he felt compelled to sign paperwork in a language he could not understand. Without knowing what he had agreed to with his signature, he was told that he had an expedited removal order and was never informed about his right to the asylum process nor his right to request a credible fear interview.
Additionally, because the ‘shout test’ requirement of the June 2024 Proclamation on Securing the Border denies unknowing individuals access to a credible fear interview, it also effectively gives ICE a way around the Padilla v. ICE settlement agreement protections. Whereas Padilla protections should otherwise extend to any individual that has waited for more than 67 days from the date to which they either requested a credible fear interview or have notified an official from Department of Homeland Security of their fear of removal, individuals currently are unable to benefit from the Padilla settlement like they once were. Prior to the June 2024 Proclamation on Securing the Border, the government was obligated to place an individual in the Credible Fear Class into removal proceedings if they waited more than 67 days without adjudication of their credible fear interview. The June 2024 Proclamation, and the September 2024 final rule, essentially allows ICE to circumvent a considerable protection for asylum seekers awaiting access to the credible fear screening process. This essential disregard for Padilla protections places individuals in more precarious situations, as well as further their delay in accessing justice and safety.
Furthermore, individuals are not granted real opportunities to demonstrate their credible fear claims as was revealed within the credible fear interview transcripts (I-870 Credible Fear Worksheet). It bears reporting that these transcripts are not verbatim resuscitations of the interview itself; instead, they are notes taken by the adjudicator, resulting often in errors in the official record. Mauricio is an individual from Colombia who was seeking asylum in the United States after experiencing decades of extortion and violence against himself and his family members. His credible fear interview transcript reveals a fundamental flaw regarding the role of asylum officers in determining decisions of vital importance. Mauricio’s transcript reveals in clear language that he was arrested in his country of origin because he was framed when a member of the guerilla militia targeting Mauricio accidentally shot himself in the foot. However, in the asylum officer’s reasoning and written analysis, the asylum officer determines that Mauricio’s subsequent imprisonment was a “lawful sanction for shooting someone” even after clarifying with Mauricio that he did not shoot any individual. This discrepancy and confusion of the facts demonstrates a flaw of the credible fear interview process to accurately address qualifications for and instances that match grounds for asylum. An instance that is significantly tied to Mauricio’s asylum claim and extended period of time incarcerated in Colombia has been misunderstood in a manner that has become incredibly consequential for Mauricio.
Additionally, individuals shared how the credible fear interviews themselves are particularly frustrating and tend to cause a lot of uncertainty. Concerned about the quality of interpretation, many individuals shared that they were not sure whether or not they were understood and able to effectively communicate their experiences to their asylum officer. Others expressed how they did not have opportunities to explain their stories as the questions were not designed to investigate the breadth of their asylum claims, but rather seemed crafted to expedite the interview process altogether. Many individuals felt uncertain about the integrity of their interviews as many expressed that they were not given adequate time to respond nor answer questions beyond a “yes/no” format. Individuals appeared to question whether the credible fear interviews were effective measures of determining fear of removal.
Presented With Deportation Papers
Individuals shared experiences of being presented with deportation papers and feeling immense pressure to sign the orders, even after expressing no interest in doing so. Paulo shared that within his very limited ability to communicate with his wife who he had been separated from and was being detained at another facility, he was able to learn that his wife had been forcibly presented with deportation papers. Paulo’s wife, Adriana, was left without food for 15 hours at Otero County Processing Center and also told to sign deportation orders, even as she shared that she had not yet had a credible fear interview even though she had requested one from her assigned asylum officer via tablet communication. Additionally, Adriana shared with the facility that she was waiting for her case to be connected to her husband’s as he had received a positive credible fear determination. Still she felt regularly pressured into signing deportation papers as she awaited updates to her asylum case. When Paulo was asked if both he and his wife knew that they needed to express their fear of removal in accordance with the June 2024 Proclamation, he responded with the following: “Yes we are afraid to return and know that we need to talk about it.”
DETENTION CONDITIONS
EXPERIENCES UNDER CBP AND ICE CUSTODY
Denial of Water and Basic Needs As Punishment
One individual from Colombia shared a particularly concerning experience in CBP custody shortly after presenting at the border. In his 3 days under CBP custody, he explained that his cohort was punished by CBP personnel because a group of people were complaining about the lack of food and its poor quality more generally. This individual shared that the food consisted of frozen sandwiches and crackers that tasted “very, very bad.” He said the food, which never changed across meals, tasted like what he imagined dog food to taste like. Because individuals, a group of mostly Venezuelans, were persistent in their complaints, the guards deemed their behavior punishable. As a result, every member of this cohort were collectively punished, denied water for hours and had their provided sleeping mats taken away.
This degree of collective punishment to warranted complaints is alarming; denying drinking water is cruel and a violation of CBP’s National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search (TEDS)6. The TEDS national standards that CBP is held to note that “food and water should never be used as a reward, or withheld as punishment.” When CBP personnel told this individual and his cohort that they would not be provided water nor have their sleeping mats returned until the group complaining about the quality of the food “calmed down,” CBP violated these standards. Additionally, the standards CBP are held to also maintain that “food provided must be in edible condition (not frozen, expired or spoiled).” CBP does not operate within the framework of their own standards and consistently underperforms. Denial of water as punishment is a violation of standards and incredibly inhumane.
Family Separation
Eleven individuals shared their experiences of being separated from their wives, partners, children, and families shortly after entering the United States under CBP custody. Most
6 See CBP National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search (TEDS)
individuals did not receive justification for why they were separated and uncertainty around when they will see one another again remains. One woman that did receive justification, however, shared that she was told that she and her husband were separated because “our cases were different and we did not have kids.” Additionally, individuals revealed that even when their cases are connected to a spouse’s, there is significant delay in one partner being released even as the other had been granted parole weeks or sometimes months prior. Essentially, policies of family separation continue under the Biden administration where families are put into troubling situations.
Contact With Families Contingent on Access To Work
Many individuals work while detained with the sole purpose of funding calls to family members. However, not every individual is able to work and thus unable to make calls to family. The process of obtaining a job appears arbitrary for some, seemingly impossible for others. While Torrance County Detention Facility uses a lottery system to offer paid work for individuals, those detained at Cibola County Correctional Center shared that the process of receiving work at the facility is based on a protocol that favors those that have been detained the longest. Francisco highlights the cruelty in this format, as it exacerbates the already difficult reality for those unable to pay for phone calls with family: “ I do not have any money, not even to call my family. . . I do not work [at Cibola County Correctional Center] because they tell me that [since] I am new here, I need to be here for four months [to work].” However, when Francisco was previously held at Torrance County Detention Facility, he was able to obtain a job and would work six days per week in order to call his loved ones from detention. Not all at Torrance County Detention Facility were so lucky to get a job, however, and Fernando shared that the lottery system prevented him from doing so as receiving work was based on chance. Paulo, who separated from his wife at the border, shared that he works in order to be able to call family. When he was held at the El Paso Service Processing Center, Paulo made one dollar per day, but at Torrance County Detention Facility he made five dollars per day working in the kitchen. He shared that his wages go almost entirely towards making calls to the government and his wife, trying to connect his positive credible fear determination with his wife who had been separated from him and held at Otero County Processing Center.
The separation of families has been immensely challenging and results in consequent psychological harm. Individuals mention how seeking asylum is emotionally difficult when precarious circumstances necessitate leaving family behind. The limited ability to contact family from detention exacerbates this challenge. Manuel highlights the difficulty of this dynamic:
I came here asking for help for my life. It is not easy to leave your family. I lived poorly but well in the Dominican Republic; I came here [to save] my life. I am not here to speak for the American name, but came here for help and protection. It was my nine year old daughter's birthday while detained. I miss my mom; I came here for protection.
Poor Interpretation Services
Individuals shared experiences of poor interpretation services across a variety of settings. For Manuel, interpretation was not clear during his credible fear interview. He left his interview wondering if his asylum officer understood his asylum claim at all as there were two instances where it was clear that his interpreter did not understand him. Not only are interpretation services poor in detention, but there are few opportunities to remedy miscommunication when it occurs.
Manuel shared that when his immigration judge reviewed his asylum claim and data from his credible fear interview (essentially an appeal of negative credible fear determinations), he attempted to speak up to share that there were some mistakes. He was given no chance to make up for the confusion caused by poor interpretation:
The thing is that I think they made some mistakes because they were asking some questions about credible fear interviews, but when they were reading about what was said, I wanted to share that there were some mistakes in there. But the judge said that only she was allowed to speak at the moment.
An inability to receive adequate interpretation services appears to have a compounding effect when there are no chances to remedy mistakes, as was the case for Manuel. However, it appears that there is a larger pattern where individuals share that they are not presented with appropriate opportunities to be understood.
Absence of Adequate Interpretation Services for Non-Spanish Language Speakers
The attorney packet provided by the Houston Asylum Office for one individual’s credible fear interview transcript reveals that his rights were explained to him in Spanish and not French, his native and expressed preferred language. Martin shared that he expressed that he wanted to have the interview conducted in French and still, the interview with CBP took place in Spanish. Martin shared that he can only attempt to understand Spanish and is often misunderstood when he tries to use it. The record in his credible fear interview transcript shares that no interpreter was present when this individual was read his rights and made a sworn statement at the El Paso Border Patrol Station when he first entered the United States. Martin has struggled to receive adequate interpretation services as a French speaker that only also speaks Bambara, a language indigenous to West Africa. His Spanish is incredibly limited and he often relies on gestures when he needs to use it with detention staff. Otherwise, he says that he is not able to talk with anyone due to the language barrier of being a French speaker in detention. Martin also shared that he is unable to ask for medical services in French. Unless a doctor is visiting, he has not been granted access to a French interpretation line.
Paulo, a Portuguese speaker, relies on a fellow detainee at Torrance County Detention Facility to translate for him. Even still, this roommate relies on gestures and mimicking when attempting to get a point across, which often falls short. Additionally, Paulo was unaware of the need to use CBP One at the time of the interview for this report, touching on a larger language barrier that non-Spanish speakers experience when it comes to engaging with the asylum process more generally.
Signing Documents Without Interpretation
Several individuals shared this frustration and concerns over experiences where they were effectively coerced into signing documents not in their preferred language and without interpretation to understand what they were signing. This is a demonstration of clear lack of informed consent and has negatively impacted experiences within and beyond detention. Several instances of this situation occurred when individuals were being transferred to ICE custody and resulted in the loss of their belongings.
El Paso Service Processing Center, located on Montana Ave. and consequently also referred to as “Montana,” is one location where this occurred time and time again upon arrival. Here individuals were presented with documents (mostly in English), and told to sign without being told what they were signing. Even weeks to months later, these individuals do not know what they ultimately signed when presented these documents upon arrival to both El Paso Processing Service Center and Cibola County Correctional Center, but they assume many of these documents involved their belongings. Months later, Manuel shared, “advocates tell us not to sign anything that we do not understand, but here we have to. This happened to me in Montana and Cibola. I have no clue what I signed in Montana.” Individuals are presented with paperwork and told where to sign, rather than informed of the contents of the paperwork. At Cibola County Correctional Center, Manuel shared that he was given paperwork to sign from staff at the facility that said that they did not speak any Spanish. There was no opportunity to interpret and understand the contents of the paperwork and efforts from him and others that arrived with him to explain that they did not understand what they were signing were not successful. Individuals reported that they signed documents without proper interpretation and informed consent most often at the El Paso Service Processing Center (Montana) and Cibola County Correctional Center.
Martin, a French-speaking individual, unknowingly signed deportation papers because he could not find the document explained to him in French. Because interpretation services are difficult to acquire at Cibola County Correctional Center for Martin, he has often signed documents in both Spanish and English, with no French interpretation provided. Martin offered that he had an idea of the contents of some paperwork, believing that he had confirmed at least once that he had taken a course on sexual abuse. Notably concerning, however, is the troubling news that he signed his deportation order by mistake in May 2024 when he was first presented with the paperwork. Martin’s fear of removal is great and he did not wish to sign his deportation order; however, when he received the paperwork, he was told to sign, and did so. As all but one section was in English, he signed and agreed to his removal unknowingly. Martin had not seen the small section in French until after he had signed the paperwork and as no individual at the facility speaks French, he did not have an opportunity for clarification. In his own words, Martin shared the following about his experience:
When they asked me to sign some papers, I did not understand because [the staff] speaks English, so when they asked me to sign, I signed because I did not understand. When I signed [the deportation paperwork], I didn’t have any information [I could understand]. After I signed it, I saw that the paper had been translated into French, but when I signed I
did not know what it said. Nobody explained to me what my deportation papers were to me when I signed.
Lack of Informed Consent
Instances of signing documents without interpretation are not the only recorded instances where individuals are effectively forced to make signed agreements without informed consent. Jose signed paperwork where he accidentally rejected his belongings when under CBP custody. He explained that “no, I never would have rejected my belongings,” but he did so by mistake because his reading glasses had been confiscated and he could not see the paperwork without them. Even though the paperwork was given to him in both Spanish and English, he was unable to consent as he could not read without his glasses. Jose shared that “Border Patrol knew I could not see the document I was signing” even after requesting access to his glasses and he only learned of his mistake after a peer told him the contents of the paperwork later.
Insufficient Medical Care
Delayed Access to Medical Attention
Many individuals were seeking medical attention when interviewed. While everyone found themselves in unique situations, they shared many common themes about navigating medical care while detained under ICE custody. One individual shared that when seeking a medical response, it might take 7-10 days after submitting a complaint, even if someone has a fever. Another individual, Luis, supported this claim, sharing that in his experience it may take “five, seven, ten days” to receive a response once a request has been made and “then we have to let it go.” Anthony shared that he has witnessed someone wait two months to receive medical attention at Cibola County Correctional Center.
Individuals In Need of Medical Care Are Afraid They Are Going to Die In Detention
Luis voiced his concern about the quality of medical care in detention: “they expect someone to die here [at Cibola County Correctional Center] to receive some aid because they wait 7-10 days for someone to even help us.” Another individual, Francisco, shared that when seeking medical attention at Cibola County Correctional Center for a hernia that causes a lot of pain and discomfort, he was told he would need to pay for painkillers at the commissary. Denial of care in this manner violates the 2011 Performance Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS)7 that detention facilities are held to. The 2011 PBNDS states that “detainees with chronic conditions shall receive care and treatment, as needed, that includes monitoring of medications, diagnostic testing and chronic care clinics.” Francisco shared that this experience was particularly upsetting. He is unable to acquire a job because access to employment at Cibola County Correctional Center is limited and contingent based on how long an individual has been detained there. Francisco is eager to leave detention so that he can receive care in Nicaragua as he also shared he is afraid he is going to die in detention and does not trust the ability of the facility to provide the quality care he needs.
When Juan sought medical assistance with his high blood pressure at Cibola County Correctional Center, he thought the medical care he received was going to kill him. Visits to see a specialist were delayed time and time again even as he expressed that he could die waiting for the right blood pressure medications. Juan shared that the first medication he received at Cibola CCC caused serious discomfort, as well as headache attacks that would cause him to wake up in the middle of the night and experience immense pain. He had to request three changes to the medication until Juan received what he needed by the time he was held at Torrance County Detention Facility some time later.
Juan’s concerns were both urgent and particularly personal as both his parents had died from complications surrounding high blood pressure. He expressed great fear surrounding how his care had been handled: “Someone told me that [the doctors] hide when they see things if they cannot treat you. . . I am scared of having a stroke here, of having pain.” Juan first shared his need for medical attention when held under CBP custody. Here Juan was told that he could not see a general doctor for his high blood pressure condition and that he would need to pay for a cardiovascular specialist. As a result, he did not receive any medical attention, even when
7 2011 Operations Manual ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) requested, in CBP custody. It took over two months for this individual to receive the correct high blood pressure medication with the safe and appropriate strength for him when in ICE custody.
Medical Neglect
When one individual was threatened with a gun near the border, he feared for his safety and felt compelled to enter the United States. Manuel fell off the border wall and sustained several injuries, including a serious spinal fracture. He sought out immigration authorities and was later taken to a hospital in El Paso before eventually being transferred to CBP and ICE custody. At this hospital, he learned that he needed surgery for his injuries, but over three months later, Manuel is yet to receive any imaging nor results from the x-ray exams he received while under CBP custody. At Cibola County Correctional Center, Manuel experiences significant pain and discomfort from his injuries and requires a great degree of care. Officers and staff do not accommodate for his pain while he has been detained, sharing that abdominal belt restraints used for interfacility transfers would not be loosened to serve his injuries even after requesting medical assistance. When requesting medical attention, he is only offered ibuprofen—medication that is not only an inadequate response to his injuries, but also concerning for him. He worries that because his injuries and pain are only treated with ibuprofen (which only relieves his pain for a few hours), he will experience liver complications as a result.
Other individuals share their stories of navigating the dangerous limited access to medical services while detained. Anthony shared that when a peer requested medical attention through the provided tablet, he did not receive an answer for more than 2 months. Another individual seeking medical attention for a hernia with pain so severe he often finds himself unable to walk. When he requests medication, he has been denied the care he needs as it is not provided by staff. Individuals shared that they understand that a doctor only visits Cibola County Correctional Center once per month and share that because doctors respond to medical reports so late, one is lucky if there is a doctor that can treat them when they are experiencing some condition that has not passed in the time it takes to be seen.
Another serious incident surrounding access to quality medical care came to light during interviews. Several individuals shared that many people had developed a rash while in detention. This rash covers the body and has been causing discomfort. None of the individuals experiencing the rash are sure how it developed, but wonder if it could be related to the unsanitary living conditions, the quality of their drinking water, or reaction to the food. When Luis requested an ointment to address the rash, he first filled out a form detailing his condition. He explained that after receiving the ointment 5-7 days after making a request, he received a near empty container. Even though the rash started spreading across Cibola County Correctional Center a month prior, many people are still suffering from the condition and shared that if they want an ointment to relieve their discomfort, they have been told they need to buy it from the commissary. There has been no protocol introduced to respond to the contagious rash, which raised concern for Luis, as people with the rash have not been treated nor quarantined. Luis is worried about inevitable exposure as a result. Diego shared that the doctors do not treat this rash nor its spread because they do not come to the facility frequently enough to address it. His cohort has been told that the rash is a psychological problem, a condition to be disregarded by the doctors. Doctors share that the rash is a “mental disease” entirely invented, from which individuals experiencing the rash have been “lying about, nothing more.”
Unaddressed Psychological Harm
Individuals shared the emotionally taxing consequences of detention and demonstrated the degree to which they experienced psychological harm. Manuel describes his experience in detention as one characterized by psychological abuse, particularly because the process treats him as if he committed a crime and he has not been granted the ability to share his story of seeking refuge in the United States when in front of immigration judges. Mauricio, who is from Venezuela, was particularly vocal about his frustration with the asylum process. Even though he received a positive credible fear determination, he has been detained since May 2024. He has been presented with deportation papers both to Venezuela and Mexico, both of which would result in further detention and dangerous conditions. After sharing that officers at Torrance County Detention Facility told him that he could be detained for two to three years, Mauricio shared that his indefinite detention has been negatively impacting his mental health:
It is horrible here. I am even becoming a depressed person because of everything that has happened here. It has been a lot of months here. I get the feeling to cry, to shout, to run out. I cannot do this much longer. . . You hear about people wanting to cut themselves and hang themselves because of the pressure of waiting. I have never been detained before. The depression is horrible.
As the record of medical neglect above suggests, detention centers appear unequipped to address health conditions. However, it appears that the psychological consequences of waiting for long periods of time throughout the asylum process warrants similar attention. The negative psychological impact of detention appears to be exacerbated by the great amount of time individuals are detained for while they await case outcomes.
Limited Access to Legal Counsel
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) reports that under the June 2024 Proclamation on Securing the Border and the September 2024 Final Rule, individuals are only provided four hours to consult an attorney before their initial fear screening; AILA argues that this “effectively [eliminates] access to legal representation.”8 When coordinating pre representational legal meetings to conduct interviews for this report, the author found serious challenges to legal access once individuals are held in detention. On several occasions, CoreCivic detention staff attempted to deny visitation rooms, phones for interpretation services, and neglected to confirm and coordinate legal visitations more generally at Torrance County Detention Facility. Further, when attempting to reach an individual detained at the Otero County Processing Center by phone, ICE contracted Management and Training Corporation (MTC) staff mistakenly referenced the Performance Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) when claiming the facility was not required to provide access to free and unlimited minutes phone calls between detained individuals and legal counsel. Conversely, Section 5.6 Telephone Access of the 2011 PBNDS standards that ICE is held to state that “full telephone access shall be granted in order for a detainee to contact . . . legal representatives, to obtain legal representation, or for consultation when subject to expedited removal (when a detainee is under an expedited removal order, his/her ability to contact pro bono legal representatives shall not be restricted.”
8 See AILA “Policy Brief: Analysis of Final Rule on ‘Securing the Border’” (October 2024)
CONCLUSION
Policies of deterrence have proven time and time again to not only be ineffective at addressing the root causes of migration, but also inhumane in their consequences. Also, these policies directly conflict with international asylum law, domestic asylum law, and commonly understood notions of due process and equal protection. The narratives of these seventeen individuals testify to the particularly harmful implications of the Biden administration’s May 2023 Circumvention of Lawful Pathways and June 2024 Proclamation on Securing the Border and its final September 2024 rule. The failures of current asylum policies to care for individuals in particularly difficult circumstances exacerbate the already precarious situations many find themselves in. Delays in entering the asylum process altogether prolong the exposure of individuals to dangerous conditions experienced when awaiting CBP One appointments to enter the United States and those experienced in detention. The qualitative data suggest that the asylum experience in the United States is shaped by policies that promote legal violence, substantial suspension and delay, and significant degree of uncertainty.
Casey Mangan
EJW Fellow and Staff Attorney New Mexico Immigrant Law Center
If you want to get involved, please visit nmilc.org/volunteer
Or to support our work, please contribute to nmilc.org/donate
