Immigration Law

Asylum Representation

Your story matters. We help you tell it the way the law requires.

Overview

Asylum is one of the most consequential — and least forgiving — areas of United States immigration law. A successful claim provides protection from removal, work authorization, a path to permanent residency, and the ability to bring close family members to safety. A denied claim, in many cases, results in an immediate referral to removal proceedings. The same story can succeed or fail depending on how it is presented, what evidence is developed, and how thoroughly the applicant is prepared. Our job is to make sure that the story you have lived is told the way the law requires it to be told.

35+

Years of trial experience

24/7

Available for urgent matters

5.0

Avvo rating · 179 reviews

The legal framework — and why it is narrower than people expect

Under United States immigration law, an applicant for asylum must show that they have suffered past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Each of those terms has a specific legal meaning, and not every form of harm — however serious — fits within them. Generalized violence, economic hardship, and personal disputes that do not fall within a protected ground are routinely denied even when the underlying suffering is real.

The applicant must also show that the persecution was committed by the government of their home country or by an actor the government is unable or unwilling to control. They must show that internal relocation within the country is not reasonable. And they must show that their account is credible — meaning consistent, detailed, and supported by available corroborating evidence. Each of these elements is a place where claims succeed or fail, and each of them requires careful preparation long before any interview or hearing.

The one-year filing deadline and the exceptions to it

An asylum application generally must be filed within one year of the applicant's last entry into the United States. Missing that deadline is one of the single most common reasons claims are denied, and the exceptions are narrow — extraordinary circumstances such as serious illness, ineffective prior counsel, or the recent maturation of a child applicant; or changed circumstances in the country of nationality that materially affect eligibility.

Where an applicant is past the deadline but otherwise qualified, two related forms of protection remain available — withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Both have higher standards than asylum and provide somewhat narrower benefits, but both can keep an applicant safely in the United States indefinitely. We assess all three forms of relief at the outset of every case and pursue whichever combination the facts support.

Affirmative versus defensive — two different proceedings, two different strategies

An asylum application filed with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, before the applicant is in removal proceedings, is called an affirmative application. It is decided by an asylum officer in a non-adversarial interview. The officer's job is to determine whether the applicant has met the legal standard, and if so, to grant asylum on the spot. If the officer is not persuaded, the case is referred to immigration court for a defensive proceeding before an immigration judge — adversarial in nature, with a government attorney representing the Department of Homeland Security on the other side.

The two proceedings call for different preparation. An affirmative interview is built around the personal statement, the supporting evidence, and the rapport between the applicant and the officer. A defensive hearing is built around legal motions, witness preparation, expert testimony, and direct and cross-examination conducted in open court. We prepare each kind of case to the standard the proceeding requires, and we never treat an affirmative interview as informal or low-stakes.

Building the personal statement — the heart of every asylum case

The personal statement is the single most important document in most asylum cases. It is the applicant's sworn account of what happened, why it happened, and why returning to the home country would not be safe. It needs to be detailed enough to satisfy the officer or judge that the applicant has lived the experience, consistent enough to withstand cross-examination, and structured enough to map clearly onto the legal elements of the claim.

We work intensively with each client on the personal statement, often over multiple sessions, with the help of professional interpreters where needed. We ask the questions the asylum officer or government attorney will ask. We identify the gaps that need to be filled with corroborating evidence. We make sure that the statement reads as the applicant's own account, in their own voice, and that it does not contradict any other document in the file. That work is slow, careful, and indispensable.

— Law Offices of Scott Gordon, PC

Country conditions, expert evidence, and the supporting record

Even the strongest personal account benefits from corroboration. We assemble a country-conditions record that includes State Department reports, human rights organization reporting, news coverage, and academic analysis specific to the applicant's region, ethnic or religious group, or political affiliation. Where available, we obtain personal corroborating documentation — police reports, medical records, photographs, identity documents, witness declarations from family or community members — translated and authenticated to immigration standards.

For cases that turn on a particular medical condition, psychological diagnosis, or sociological context, we retain expert witnesses to provide written reports and, when needed, live testimony. The record we build often runs to several hundred pages, organized to allow the officer or judge to navigate it quickly. That record is what supports the credibility of the personal statement and what often makes the difference between a grant and a denial.

The interview, the merits hearing, and the appeal

We prepare every applicant for the asylum interview or merits hearing in detail. That preparation includes mock questioning, document review, walk-through of the procedures, and discussion of how to handle cross-examination if the case is in immigration court. The applicant is the most important witness in any asylum case, and how they present — clearly, consistently, with the precision the law requires — is something that can be developed with practice.

If the case is denied, the appeal process is governed by strict deadlines and procedural rules. We handle appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals, motions to reopen, and where appropriate petitions for review to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The work at the appellate stage is largely written and turns on the development of the record at the original hearing — which is one more reason that the case must be prepared properly the first time.

Family, work, and the practical consequences of a grant

When an asylum application is granted, the consequences are immediate and far-reaching. The applicant becomes eligible to apply for permanent residency one year after the grant. Spouse and unmarried children under twenty-one can be added to the case as derivative asylees, including those who remain abroad. Work authorization is automatic. Travel becomes possible with a refugee travel document, although careful planning is required to avoid jeopardizing the status.

We walk every grant through what comes next — adjustment of status, family reunification under the I-730 follow-to-join petition, employment authorization renewal, and eventually naturalization. Asylum is a beginning, not an end. The protection itself is the immediate goal, but a settled life in the United States is the longer one, and we are with our clients through every step of that journey.