Judge's line of questioning alarms lawyers in lgbtq+ asylum case
A federal immigration judge's relentless probing into the intimate details of a gay Iranian asylum seeker’s relationship has sparked outrage and raised serious concerns about the fairness of asylum proceedings for LGBTQ+ individuals facing persecution. The exchange, captured on audio and obtained by The Advocate, reveals a line of questioning described by the man's attorney as deeply inappropriate and indicative of a troubling trend.
The case: fleeing for safety
The Iranian man, one of two asylum seekers who fled their homeland fearing execution for “homosexual conduct,” presented what his lawyer, Rebekah Wolf of the American Immigration Council, calls a “textbook” asylum claim. In Iran, same-sex relations are criminalized and punishable by death, making the couple's desire for safety and freedom a matter of life and death. They sought refuge in the United States, only to face a gauntlet of scrutiny within the immigration system.
A prosecutor's approach to asylum
Immigration Judge Samuel Williams, a relatively recent appointee to the Otero detention court with a background as a prosecutor and military attorney—and no prior experience in immigration law—led the questioning. The recording reveals a series of direct, often intrusive inquiries focused on the applicant’s personal life, including details of a marriage to a woman 14 years prior and the intricacies of his relationship with his male partner. Williams’ questioning style, reminiscent of his prosecutorial past, has drawn sharp criticism.
“Y’all all sleep in the same room?” Williams asked, a question that highlights a potential misunderstanding of the survival strategies employed by LGBTQ+ individuals in countries where disclosure can be deadly. The applicant, through an interpreter, explained that secrecy was not a choice but a necessity, a constant shield against potential harm. His wife was the only person aware of his relationship, a carefully guarded secret in a society where discovery could bring swift and brutal consequences. He recounted an earlier detention by Iranian authorities after being discovered with his partner, an experience marked by physical abuse and the palpable fear of further punishment.
The judge’s focus on demonstrable proof, as he put it, “to check the box to say that your case at least smells like it meets the elements for asylum,” further fueled concerns. Advocates argue this emphasis on visible injury overlooks the profound psychological harm and credible threats of future violence that often characterize persecution.
A pattern of questionable scrutiny
Wolf pointed to a separate case involving a South American asylum seeker where similar tactics were employed. In that instance, the judge reportedly questioned the veracity of repeated sexual assaults, suggesting they might have been consensual—a line of questioning Wolf deemed “atrocious.” This pattern raises troubling questions about implicit biases within the immigration court system.
The situation is exacerbated by the administration’s increased reliance on “third-country deportations,” sending migrants to nations like Uganda where they may face further persecution. And while credibility remains central to asylum cases, legal experts caution against its application in a manner that misunderstands the realities faced by LGBTQ+ individuals seeking refuge.
Vanessa Dojaquez-Torres, of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, noted the persistent challenges faced by clients from Mexico who speak Indigenous languages, often pressured to proceed in Spanish despite its not being their primary language. The fundamental problem, as she sees it, is a system where “an immigration judge will go, ‘That’s very sad. Now let’s get back to your asylum case,’” effectively dismissing experiences of violence and abuse.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, unsurprisingly, declined to comment on the specifics of the case, citing its policy of not commenting on individual judge decisions. However, the broader conditions within U.S. immigration detention, as documented by organizations like Freedom for Immigrants, reveal a disturbing reality of discrimination, abuse, and systemic barriers for LGBTQ+ migrants – a reality where oversight is, according to Jeff Migliozzi, “virtually nonexistent.” The pursuit of safety should not become a gauntlet of intrusive questioning and systemic indifference.