WASHINGTON — Rajeshkumar Kumarasamy fled Sri Lanka for the United States in 2005 to save his life, escaping threats from the Tamil Tigers, the brutal terrorist group that has been waging war in the island nation for decades.
Instead of finding the refuge he hoped for in the U.S, though, he ended up spending the next two years at a detention center in Elizabeth, N.J.
“They treated me kinda like a slave, “ Kumarasamy said in a phone interview from San Diego, Calif.
Because he did not have a valid visa to come to the U.S., he was stopped at the Newark airport, and immediately sent to a detention center.
For two years, Kumarasamy had to share a room with about 20 to 30 people, had limited access outside and very little contact with his wife and parents back home. He said he thought about going back to Sri Lanka — and possibly putting his life at risk again.
He initially found an attorney when he first arrived at the detention center. Two years later, with the help of Human Rights First organization, he met Steven Schulman, a pro bono attorney from Akin Gump law firm in Washington.
Schulman filed a habeas corpus in May 2007, which allowed Kumarasamy’s claim to be brought to court. He was then released from the detention center.
“It was a very complicated process,” Schulman said. “In the 15 years I’ve worked on asylum cases, his was the most complex case I’ve worked on.”
But Kumarasamy’s fight was not over. He was finally granted asylum in March 2011, but because he does not have a green card yet – it’s currently being processed – he is unable to visit Sri Lanka or bring his wife and mother to the U.S. Because his marriage was not legally registered with the Sri Lankan authorities, he will have to appeal his case with the courts to bring his wife here.
It’s been eight years since Kumarasamy has seen his family. This has weighed heavily on his wife who considered getting a divorce.
“It’s about filing and filing and waiting for a petition,” Kumarasamy said. “My wife said I had spoiled our marriage.”
It’s cases like this one that motivates Schulman, who previously worked on antitrust and white-collar crime, to continue representing asylum seekers.
With the Senate voting an overwhelming 82-15 last week to debate on the comprehensive immigration bill, Schulman and a group of attorneys are urging Senators to keep certain asylum provisions in the bill intact, which include eliminating the one-year asylum filing deadline, increasing the number of immigration judges and support staff and expanding legal outreach programs to all 250 facilities in the U.S.
Schulman is the President-Elect of the Association of Pro Bono Counsel, which has 120 members from 85 of the world’s largest law firms. On June 4, the association sent letters to Senators asking them to support the provisions. Schulman said he has heard from a few senators including Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Dick Durbin, D-Chicago, Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; and Chris Coons, D-Del.
“We heard a very positive response, “Schulman said in an on-camera interview at Akin & Gump last week.
He said the association is “very hopeful” that the removal of the one-year filing deadline will be supported in the final bill. They plan to speak with members of the House as well.
The initial reason of having a one-year filing deadline is to avoid fraud, but instead Schulman said it keeps people from filing in fear of missing the deadline and lawyers from focusing on their client’s protection claims and less on filing requirements not being met.
“Unfortunately, what the [deadline] is doing is keeping a lot of people in the shadows who might otherwise have legitimate claims of protection, “ Schulman said.
He said asylum seekers don’t file early because they either are not aware there is a deadline or because the trauma they suffered keeps them from applying within a year.
If the one-year deadline is eliminated in the final immigration bill, Schulman said it is still important that asylum seekers apply sooner than later because their claims “can grow stall” based on conditions of the country.
Although Kumarasamy filed for asylum within one year, it still took him up to eight years to finally get asylum. Depending on the claim, Schulman said some can take months or years. He said if the provision that increased the number of immigration court judges were already in place, Kumarasamy’s case would have been decided sooner.