Since he entered politics, our President has denigrated asylum seekers as fraudsters who game the system in an effort to harm hard-working Americans.

Having practiced in this area for more than two decades, my observation is that most asylum seekers have legitimate claims, and in many cases, there is indisputable evidence about the risks they face. That's not to say that people don't sometimes exaggerate or even make things up--many asylum seekers come from countries where lying to their governments is necessary for survival--but at least in the cases I have seen, the large majority of applicants have legitimate claims for protection.

But there is another type of fraud in the asylum system. This fraud is more pervasive and more dangerous because it points to wider problems within our government. I am speaking here about the fraud perpetrated by the Asylum Office itself.

How can the Asylum Office commit fraud, you ask? By pretending to fairly adjudicate asylum applications while at the same time, making it impossible for asylum seekers to properly present their cases--that's how.

There are two primary victims of this fraud. The first, of course, are asylum seekers, who often do not have a fair opportunity to present their claims. The other victims are Asylum Officers, who are attempting to fulfill their important responsibilities under impossible circumstances.

Let's start with asylum seekers. According to (relatively) recent data, there are more than 1 million cases pending at the nation's Asylum Offices. Some cases have a spouse and children, and so there are probably close to 2 million people in the affirmative asylum system. Many of those applicants have been waiting five or 10 years for an interview, and so have been living with uncertainty (can I stay or must I go? When can I reunite with family members overseas?) for a very long time.

Now, at least in some offices, interviews are being scheduled. But the way interviews are being scheduled is problematic. The Asylum Offices are giving little notice before the interviews, which gives the applicants (and their lawyers) insufficient time to update their cases and get ready for the interview. In many cases, interview notices arrive 10 days to two weeks before the interview itself. Since documents are due at least a week prior to the interview, there is almost no time to get ready.

Also, in my local office (Virginia), they have stopped accepting evidence by email, meaning it has to be sent by post or dropped off in person. This is also a problem, as it leaves even less time to gather and submit documents. Also, mailed documents often get lost after they arrive at the Asylum Office, which adds an additional layer of stress to an already stressful situation. Dropping off documents is not easy either, as the only time to do that is during a two-hour window on Thursday mornings.

One option (which we try in most cases) is to request that the interview be rescheduled. This is necessary, as the Asylum Offices do not ask about attorney availability, and given our busy schedules, we are often not available on a particular date on such short notice. In some offices, these reschedule requests can be done by email, but in our office, they recently stopped accepting email requests and now require that we send a request by mail, which is very slow, or we come in person on Thursday to ask to reschedule, which is very time consuming.

The cumulative effect of all this is to make it much more difficult for lawyers to help our clients or for applicants to present their cases effectively.

Asylum Officers are also suffering from the new procedures. Officers are now required to interview eight cases per week. Given all their other tasks (security background checks, writing up decisions, training), this is an overwhelming burden, and officers are suffering burn out.

In our local office, the situation is compounded by the fact that Asylum Officers do not receive the file until the day of the interview, which means they have to review the file and get ready while the applicant is sitting in the waiting room. The purpose of this system is so that officers avoid "no shows" where their pre-scheduled interviewee fails to appear. However, preparing at the last minute is stressful, and makes it more likely that officers will make a mistake or miss something important.

What's sad about all this is that most of these problems could be solved by simply giving applicants more notice prior to the interview--30 to 60 days would be enough. When the applicant submits evidence and updates in advance, the Asylum Office can be reasonably certain that that applicant will appear for the interview, which avoids "no shows" and allows the officer to prepare ahead of time. A month or two is also sufficient time for applicants to gather additional evidence and properly present their cases.

These are very difficult times for non-citizens. Our nation's institutions--including the Asylum Office--should do everything possible to fulfill their missions in a way that honors the law and respects due process. If the Asylum Offices could schedule interviews with more advance notice, they would go a long way towards meeting those goals.

Originally posted on the Asylumist: www.Asylumist.com