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

Ohio Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Gender-Affirming Care

March 19, 2025On March 18, 2025, the 10th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County ruled that Ohio’s House Bill (HB) 68, which restricts puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors seeking gender-affirming care, violates the Health Care Freedom Amendment and is therefore unenforceable. The court found that the law unlawfully interferes with parental rights and medical decision-making. The case, Moe v. Yost, has been remanded, and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost intends to appeal.Client Alert

HHS Revokes Public Comment Requirement on Certain Policy Changes

March 5, 2025The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has revoked the Richardson Waiver, eliminating the requirement for public notice and comment on certain policy changes. This decision allows HHS to implement new policies more quickly, potentially affecting healthcare funding rules like Medicaid work requirements. While it speeds up policymaking, it also reduces opportunities for stakeholder input, raising concerns over transparency and unintended consequences for healthcare providers, states, and patients.Client Alert

Don't Get Caught Dazed and Confused: Another Florida Court Weighs in on Employer Obligations to Accommodate Medical Marijuana Use

March 3, 2025A Florida trial court ruled in Giambrone v. Hillsborough County that employers may need to accommodate off-duty medical marijuana use under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). This contrasts with prior rulings and raises new compliance challenges for employers. With the case on appeal, now is the time to review workplace drug policies.Client Alert

Corporate Transparency Act to be Re-evaluated

February 28, 2025Recent federal rulings have impacted the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. While reporting requirements were briefly reinstated, FinCEN has now paused enforcement and is reevaluating the CTA. Businesses are no longer required to submit reports until further guidance is issued. For updates and legal counsel, contact BMD Member Blake Gerney.Client Alert

Ohio Recovery Housing Operators Beware: House Bill 58 Seeks to Make Major Changes

February 26, 2025Ohio House Bill 58 proposes significant changes to recovery housing oversight, granting ADAMH Boards authority to inspect and investigate recovery residences. The bill also introduces a Certificate of Need (CON) program, requiring state approval for major facility changes. OMHAS will assess applications based on cost, quality, accessibility, and financial feasibility. The bill also establishes a recovery housing residence fund to support inspections. For more information, contact BMD attorneys Daphne Kackloudis or Jordan Burdick.
Older posts
Newer posts