Expedited Removal Study

The Expedited Removal Study, funded by the Ford Foundation and the Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation, is a project of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law.  The Expedited Removal Study took place 1997 to 2000  to conduct a comprehensive nationwide review of the expedited removal process implemented in April 1997, especially as such procedures apply to asylum seekers. The Study, which is the only scholarly public policy analysis of expedited removal, enjoys broad support from experts and academics working in the immigration and refugee field, a number of whom serve on its Advisory Board. The Expedited Removal Study is directed by Karen Musalo; J. Edward Taylor, Professor at the University of California at Davis, is the Study's research consultant.

Congress enacted expedited removal procedures to summarily return at ports of entry persons who do not have valid travel documents or who attempt entry through fraud or misrepresentation. The procedures provide that persons indicating a fear of return or intent to apply for asylum are to be referred to an asylum officer for a credible fear interview to determine whether their claims are groundless and abusive; if not they are to be channeled into the normal adjudication process for full consideration of their claims to asylum and related protection that under previous law was accorded to all asylum seekers. In enacting expedited removal, Congress hoped to deter the entry of fraudulent claimants to admission while ensuring that sincere asylum seekers have the opportunity to access the full asylum process.

The Expedited Removal Study was designed to examine all components of the new procedure and to provide solid statistical and qualitative information to policy makers and the public. The Study seeks to determine whether expedited removal, as implemented, meets the dual congressional objectives of preventing abuse of the process, while at the same time identifying and screening-in individuals who fear persecution.

The Study's original methodology included on-site observation of the process at selected ports of entry in conjunction with review of Immigration and Naturalization Service data. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has not allowed access for on-site observation and has provided little relevant data for review. As a consequence, the Study has sought alternative sources of data, including information gathered from the attorneys and organizations providing representation to persons in the expedited removal process. The Study has also utilized the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process to require the INS to provide relevant data. In contrast to the INS, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) initially cooperated with the Study, and provided redacted copies of over 150 files in cases of expedited removal.