Almost immediately, however, Human Rights First, through its pro bono asylum representation program, began to receive reports from clients and other asylum seekers of improper conduct of expedited removal, including improper conduct by INS inspectors during the secondary inspection process.  In response, Human Rights First issued a report in March 1998, entitled Slamming the Golden Door, in which we recommended that the INS take specific steps to ensure the greatest possible degree of protection for asylum seekers who are subject to the expedited removal process.  The INS did not implement our recommendations, and we have continued to receive disturbing reports of improprieties, abuses and mistakes during expedited removal and its secondary inspection stage in particular.

Since the INS continues to bar outside observers from the secondary inspection process, and the INS declines to release timely or detailed data about secondary inspection, independent observers cannot monitor the process.  The INS has refused access not only to NGOs, but also to the Expedited Removal Study, an academic study funded by the Ford Foundation that was designed to assess the effects of expedited removal. ^[50]   Although the INS has allowed the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to have access, with the understanding, in part, that the information obtained would remain confidential, the UNHCR does not have the resources to monitor expedited removal and has repeatedly urged the INS to allow national groups access to the expedited removal process. ^[51] In addition, the INS has yet to provide data in response to a request, filed on our behalf, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1999. The INS similarly failed to respond to FOIA requests filed by the Expedited Removal Study and the ACLU, leaving these groups no choice but to appeal and consider litigation. The ACLU filed a lawsuit. Settlement negotiations in this lawsuit resulted in the release of limited data and a promise to produce a sample of approximately 5,000 expedited removal case files. As of the date of this report, significant data promised under the settlement agreement remain outstanding, and the INS has yet to produce any individual case files. 

The law firm of Arnold & Porter assisted Human Rights First, on a pro bono basis, in gathering information from asylum seekers and other travelers about their experiences with secondary inspection. During 1998 and early 1999, under the leadership of Arnold & Porter's Nancy Perkins, attorneys at the firm interviewed numerous asylum seekers, business travelers and tourists; in cases where the individual who went through the secondary inspection process was not available, the attorney for the traveler or another contact was interviewed.  The law firm of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP also assisted, on a pro bono basis, in interviewing some asylum seekers in the New York area.  In the fall of 1999, Human Rights First, with the help of NAPIL Equal Justice Fellow Anwen Hughes, began tracking through its representation work the experiences of its clients and other asylum seekers during the secondary inspection process. 

As a result of these efforts, Human Rights First has gathered information regarding 108 asylum seekers who went through the expedited removal process, including 10 asylum seekers who were turned away from secondary inspection, and numerous business travelers and tourists.  The results of our efforts are anecdotal and do not constitute a random statistical survey.  Most of the asylum seekers we interviewed requested that their real names not be used, many because they feared for the safety of family members in their home countries. Some were detained and feared retaliation by the INS.  The asylum seekers and other travelers who were interviewed arrived primarily at JFK International Airport in New York (where nearly a quarter of asylum seekers enter), but also at various other airports, including Miami International Airport, Houston International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, Newark International Airport, Boston's Logan International Airport, Detroit International Airport, and Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C., as well as the U.S. land borders with Mexico and Canada.

Of the 108 cases we reviewed, 93 asylum seekers were subjected to abusive or improper treatment at U.S. airports.  Throughout this report, abusive or improper treatment is defined as (i) improperly turning away an asylum seeker, (ii) rude or unprofessional conduct by INS officers (such as mockery, physical force, public humiliation, cursing, and the use of ethnic slurs), (iii) detention at the airport for excessive periods of time ranging from 16 to over 40 hours, (iv) shackling or handcuffing for long periods, (v) detaining people for long periods in very cold cells, (vi) strip-searching, (vii) deprivation of food or water or withholding access to the restroom, and (viii) failure to follow INS procedures, including failure to provide an adequate interpreter, failure to advise people of the availability of protection before interviewing them, directing people to sign certifications (in English) that they have not read or had read back to them, and failure to give asylum seekers information about the process in a language they understand.

Human Rights First acknowledges the invaluable information contained in the reports of the Expedited Removal Study of the University of California, Hastings College of Law's Center for Human Rights and International Justice. We are also extremely appreciative of the extensive pro bono work of Arnold & Porter, as well as the pro bono assistance provided by Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.  We also wish to thank the National Association for Public Interest Law (NAPIL) and the firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP for sponsoring the NAPIL Equal Justice Fellowship at Human Rights First.  Finally, we wish to thank the generous funders of Human Rights First's work on behalf of refugees, and the many refugees, attorneys, nonprofit organizations and others who provided information for this report.