Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Understanding Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews: A Critical Guide for Immigrants Facing Removal

Client Alert
May 23, 2025

Washington, D.C. – In a timely new article, Rob Ratliff, Immigration Attorney and former Immigration Judge, clarifies the differences between Reasonable Fear Interviews and Credible Fear Interviews, essential processes for noncitizens fearing persecution or torture. Published at www.removal-defense.com, the article explains concepts central to recent judicial rulings, including U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy’s order addressing the Trump administration’s unlawful deportations to South Sudan, which violated his April 18, 2025, injunction (U.S. District Court, Massachusetts).

Reasonable Fear Interviews apply to individuals with prior removal orders, like those with aggravated felonies or reentry after deportation (INA § 238(b), § 241(a)(5)), assessing a “reasonable possibility” of persecution or torture. Successful cases lead to withholding-only proceedings for withholding of removal or Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection (8 CFR § 208.31). Credible Fear Interviews target those in expedited removal, like border apprehensions, requiring a lower “significant possibility” of eligibility for asylum, withholding, or CAT protection, potentially leading to an Asylum Merits Interview or removal proceedings (INA § 235(b)(1); 8 CFR § 208.30).

Both allow an immigration judge (IJ) review of negative findings, but the IJ review is final with no appeal (8 CFR § 1208.31(g); 8 CFR § 1003.42), unless a new hearing is granted. An alien may consult with counsel prior to a hearing with an IJ or asylum officer, but during asylum officer interviews, attorneys are limited to observation and consultation (8 CFR § 208.30(d)(4); 8 CFR § 208.31(c)). It is the discretion of the IJ or asylum officer, is the attorney is permitted provide brief argument on behalf of their client. Notice for a hearing is provided via Form I-863 or Notices to Appear (8 CFR § 1208.31(e); 8 CFR § 1239.1).

“Judge Murphy’s ruling underscores the due process issues in these screenings,” said Ratliff. “Our article connects these processes to real-world cases.” Read the full analysis at www.removal-defense.com.

ImmigrationImmigration LawRobert Ratliff
Client Alert

Parental Consent May Soon Be Required for Minor Mental Health Services in Ohio

June 25, 2025HB 172 proposes repealing a provision in Ohio law that allows minors age 14 and older to consent to limited outpatient mental health services without parental involvement. The bill would require parental consent for all such care and remove related language from other sections of the Ohio Revised Code.Client Alert

Community Behavioral Health Providers - Supervisor Pricing Changes Begin July 1 [Corrected Date]

June 16, 2025Effective June 16, community behavioral health providers wishing to receive reimbursement at the supervisor rate must add the HP or HT Modifier to fee-for-service (FFS) claims. Find out about the new guidelines.Client Alert

CMS Rescinds EMTALA Guidance for Emergency Abortions

June 16, 2025On June 3, 2025, CMS withdrew its 2022 guidance on emergency abortion care under EMTALA, eliminating federal protection for providers in states with abortion restrictions. This policy change could significantly impact how hospitals handle emergency care involving pregnancy complications.Client Alert

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

June 11, 2025In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all Title VII plaintiffs, whether from majority or minority groups, must meet the same evidentiary standard. The decision eliminates the “background circumstances rule” and reinforces equal treatment in workplace discrimination claims.Client Alert

House Republicans Propose Cuts to Medicaid to Finance Savings

May 12, 2025House Republicans have introduced legislative language that proposes substantial cuts to the Medicaid entitlement program, aiming to achieve significant budget savings through policy changes. The proposed measures include stricter eligibility verification, work requirements for certain adults, and federal funding cuts to states providing coverage to undocumented residents. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the proposed healthcare provisions would reduce spending by $715 billion and could result in 8.6 million fewer people having health insurance by 2034.
Older posts
Newer posts