Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

As Immigration Hearings Accelerate, Somali Asylum Seekers Fear Losing Due Process

News

Women gathered in circle.

Somali women and girls prepare for a buraanbur performance at the Tukwila Community Center on Jan. 24, 2026.

Patty Tang

Across the Seattle region, Somali families are living with a level of fear that few others in our city fully see. This fear is rooted in sudden immigration court changes and in a national climate that feels increasingly unstable for people seeking asylum.

In recent months, immigration attorneys in multiple states, including here in Washington, have reported that Somali asylum hearings were abruptly rescheduled to earlier dates, in some cases moved forward by months or even years. Families who believed they had time to prepare are now scrambling to gather documentation, secure legal representation, and revisit traumatic experiences under compressed timelines.


Nationally, the immigration court system is facing a historic backlog. According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University (TRAC), there are more than 1.5 million pending immigration cases in the United States, including hundreds of thousands of asylum claims. TRAC data shows that the backlog has steadily increased over the past decade, placing enormous strain on due-process protections and access to timely adjudication.

While reducing backlog is important, accelerating individual cases without expanding access to legal representation risks creating a different kind of injustice. Research consistently shows that representation dramatically impacts asylum outcomes. A study by the American Immigration Council found that detained immigrants with legal representation were up to five times more likely to obtain relief than those without counsel. In asylum cases specifically, representation is one of the strongest predictors of success.

When hearings are moved up with limited notice, asylum seekers may not have adequate time to secure attorneys, gather affidavits, obtain country condition reports, or prepare testimony. Due process depends not only on having a hearing, but on having a meaningful opportunity to present evidence.

For Somali nationals, the anxiety is heightened by longstanding instability in Somalia. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly designated Somalia for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) due to armed conflict and extraordinary conditions. TPS has been extended multiple times over the years because of persistent insecurity and humanitarian concerns. Although TPS policy decisions are separate from asylum adjudications, Somali families closely watch federal shifts in protection policies and worry about broader enforcement consequences.

There are also circulating fears about deportation to third countries, including Uganda. While formal removal arrangements depend on federal policy and bilateral agreements, even the perception of possible third-country transfers creates profound distress for asylum seekers who lack permanent status elsewhere. For families who have fled violence, uncertainty about potential removal locations deepens trauma.

Immigration court data also shows disparities in outcomes depending on geography and adjudicator assignment. Research examining federal immigration court decisions has documented significant variation in asylum grant rates across judges and jurisdictions. These disparities underscore why procedural safeguards and adequate preparation time matter.

Seattle and King County are home to one of the largest Somali communities in the United States. Somali residents are entrepreneurs, health care workers, faith leaders, students, and parents volunteering in schools. Many fled civil war, political persecution, or extremist violence. They came here believing in the promise of protection under U.S. asylum law, which is grounded in the Immigration and Nationality Act and international refugee conventions.

Seattle often describes itself as a welcoming and equity-centered city. That commitment is tested in moments like this. Efficiency in immigration courts cannot come at the cost of fairness. Policymakers must ensure that docket management reforms do not undermine access to counsel or due process rights. Clear communication from federal agencies is also essential. When communities do not receive transparent information, fear fills the vacuum.

Somali asylum seekers are asking a basic question: Will we have a fair chance to tell our story?

Due process is not a technicality. It is the foundation of a just immigration system. If we believe in fairness and human dignity, then we must insist that procedural protections remain at the center of asylum adjudication.

The families affected are not abstractions. They are our neighbors. Their safety and stability are part of Seattle's future.


Ubax Gardheere is a King County–based advocate for racial equity and transformative justice. Born in exile and shaped by experiences of economic injustice and forced migration across East Africa, she has called King County home for more than 30 years.

As Immigration Hearings Accelerate, Somali Asylum Seekers Fear Losing Due Process was originally published by the South Seattle Emerald and is republished with permission.


Read More

​Christa Pike

Christa Pike in an undated photo.

(Tennessee Department of Correction/ZUMA Press/TNS)

How death penalty opponents share the blame for botched executions

“Botched” is a perfectly fine word for golf, cooking, or home repair. It seems inadequate for the taking of a life, even the life of Christa Pike, a heinous murderer.

In 1996, a jury found Pike guilty of the torture and murder of her Jobs Corps classmate, Colleen Slemmer. Pike was sentenced to death. In the 30 years since, her case has gone through at least seven major rounds of appeal and judicial review, including four petitions to the Supreme Court. All were rejected. This doesn’t even include the many more attempts to reopen or reverse her sentence that went nowhere. She is guilty, lawfully and rightly convicted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks before signing the Secure America Act in the Oval Office of the White House on June 10, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Loyalty Question’ on Civil Service Job Applications

A court’s decision to block the Trump administration from including a “loyalty question” on federal job applications was a win not only for the nonpartisan civil service, but also for the communities public employees serve, said one labor leader whose union was among the plaintiffs in the case against the Office of Personnel Management.

Patrick Moran, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, said Friday that the loyalty questions the OPM placed on job applications for public servants were a “blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers.”

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less