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