Interview Themes & Question Models for Asylum Cases
Date of Information: 079/15/2025
Check back soon; we update these materials frequently
Introduction
The goal of this page is to give attorneys and advocates a single, comprehensive prompt list to elicit the facts that matter most for asylum eligibility, credibility, and—with today’s border regime—Circumvention of Lawful Pathways exceptions/rebuttal and the Family Unity Exception.
Identity and Bases for Persecution
This section sets the case’s foundation: who the client is, who targeted them (or will), and why—i.e., the protected-ground motive. The goal is to surface early, concrete motive indicators (what persecutors said and did because of the client’s identity/beliefs) and any ties to state power. Getting this right frames the entire narrative, supports credibility, and helps establish that the client would otherwise qualify for asylum “but for” CLP—positioning the case for the Family Unity Exception if needed.
Essential questions
About the Asylum Seeker:
Full legal name(s)
Date of Birth
Nationality(ies),
Languages spoken
A brief “why asylum?” overview in two sentences.
About the Persecutor:
Who targeted you? (government/party/militia/cartel/private actor).
Why do you think they targeted you? (link to a protected ground).
Which protected ground(s) apply:
Race,
Family,
Gender-based,
LGBTQ+,
Anti-gang/Anti-terrorist group,
Witnesses, etc.
Nexus Between Bases and Persecution:
Try to Elicit Concrete Examples Demonstrating the Persecutor’s Motivations:
Slurs used,
Statements made,
Notices posted,
Online posts referenced.
Lock in nexus facts early
Ask what persecutors said about the client’s identity/beliefs and what actions they took “because of” it. Note any ties to authorities (uniforms, insignia, vehicles) and prior reports to police and outcomes.
Discrimination History & Escalation to Persecution
Use this section to narrate the longer arc: how membership in a particular social group or race shaped the client’s daily life from childhood onward—education, work, housing, policing, access to documents, and social standing. Discrimination ≠ persecution, but documenting a pattern of exclusion and hostility shows that what happened later did not come out of nowhere. It establishes foreseeability, motive, and escalation—and, where relevant, explains how lived discrimination led to political activation (e.g., speaking out, organizing, documenting abuses), which then triggered targeted persecution. Note: For more information, please refer to the CIL research guide on political asylum.
Essential questions
Childhood & school: How did your group/race status affect school access, treatment by teachers/peers, uniforms/language rules, examinations, or placement?
Early identity & dignity:
What messages did you receive about your group?
How did that make you feel about yourself and your prospects?
Adolescence–adulthood:
What opportunities were denied or limited (jobs, licenses, housing, bank accounts, higher ed, military exemptions/conscription)?
Any special taxes/fees or document barriers?
Daily policing & social control:
Were you stopped more often, harassed, or monitored?
Any “curfews,” ID checks, travel restrictions, or neighborhood segregation?
Community harms: What happened to family or neighbors in your group (beatings, evictions, expulsions, disappearances)?
Escalation timeline:
When did discrimination start to intensify (boycotts, doxxing, blacklists, threats)?
What events marked the shift from mere discrimination to persecution?
Political activation overlap:
How did this history push you toward speech/activism (meetings, posts, protests, union/church/NGO work)?
How did authorities or adversaries react once you became visible?
Past Harm and Threats
Here you document specific incidents—what happened, when/where, who did or said what, and what the client suffered. The purpose is to build the past-persecution record, demonstrate escalation and pattern, and test state protection. This section seeds corroboration (medical/police/witness evidence) and sets up the Moment of Recognition, making the later Flight and Journey phases read as a necessary response to persecution—not as opportunistic migration.
Essential questions
What happened?
When?,
Where?,
Who was involved?
What did they say or do?
Repeat for each incident.
Injury/medical care?
What injuries did you suffer?
Which clinic/hospital?
When were you treated and for how long?
What treatments were required?
Who treated you?
Detention/arrest?
Where were you taken?
Who took you there?
What were the goals of your captors?
When and how long were you detained?
What were the conditions of the facility?
What were your release terms?/How did you escape?
How were you treated in the facility?
Torture: A reliable inquiry into torture requires some technical knowledge and a keen understanding of trauma responses. Please see the CIL Guide to Debriefing Torture (forthcoming).
Did you report to police/prosecutor/ombudsman? What response? If not, why not (futility or danger)?
Ongoing threats: calls, messages, “visitations,” warrants, summons, social-media targeting—dates and screenshots.
Moment of Recognition
This phase should surface the client’s clear “it’s no longer safe to stay” inflection point. They don’t need a time-stamped minute, but they should describe—specifically and clearly—when and why they concluded that remaining would jeopardize their life or liberty, and what was going through their mind. If a client can’t articulate this internal decision and primary motivation, judges may read the flight as economically driven rather than persecution-driven. Other motives can coexist, but the fear of persecution should be central. Immediately after this, move to Preparations to Depart: outside of the most dire emergencies, people rarely just run—details about obtaining a passport, securing funds, arranging logistics or childcare, and similar steps add realism and credibility to the narrative.
Essential questions
Describe the moment you realized it was no longer safe to remain. What had changed?
Who or what triggered that realization?
Threat,
Attack,
Arrest,
Disappearance,
Failed police protection
What did you believe would happen if you stayed?
To you?
To your family?”
Preparations to Depart
These questions lock down the timeline between the client’s internal decision to flee and the actual departure, which is central to credibility. They help demonstrate that the primary driver of flight was persecution—not economics—by showing concrete, risk-aware steps taken to protect life and liberty. The speed of departure should be proportionate to the danger: if the harm was imminent (arrest, disappearance, credible death threats), a departure within hours or days is coherent; if the client left after weeks or months, the record should show why that interval was still reasonable under threat (e.g., securing passports under surveillance, arranging a safehouse, gathering funds discreetly, finding transport for children, avoiding detection). Specific preparatory acts—passport or visa efforts, moving money, selling property at a loss, coordinating with trusted contacts, wiping phones, packing essentials—add realism and rebut the notion of opportunistic, economically motivated migration. This phase also seeds corroboration (tickets, transfers, chats, documents) and bridges naturally into Flight and Journey (CLP), where the same constraints often explain why “lawful pathways” were infeasible or unsafe.Essential questions
Essential questions
What concrete steps did you take before leaving?
Securing documents
Securing or transferring funds
Transport arrangements
Childcare arrangements
Coordinating safehouses or other safe havens
Information security (e.g., wiping sensitive data from phones or laptops)
How much time passed from your decision to leave to your actual departure? Why did it take that long (or need to be that fast)?”
How did you obtain your passport and visa?
What stamps/visas should we expect to see?
What risks did you face getting them?
Who helped or hindered you?
What payments or transfers did you make in exchange for their services?”
What did you leave behind (work, property, belongings), and why was leaving them necessary for safety?
Who did you leave behind and why?
Flight
This section captures the moment the client actually left—linking the internal decision to flee with concrete departure facts. The purpose is to lock in a clear, proportionate timeline (how fast they left relative to the danger), show that safety and liberty concerns—rather than economic motives—drove the exit, and surface credibility builders (checkpoints, escorts, bribes, detentions). The answers here bridge naturally into the Journey section and create early anchors for corroboration (tickets, stamps, messages).
Essential questions
Exact day/approx. date of leaving home and the immediate trigger.
Route from home to first staging point (safehouse/airport/bus). Who traveled with you?
Checkpoints, searches, bribes, assaults, detentions, or escorts during exit.
Anything you had to do to avoid detection (travel times, disguises, circuitous routes).
CLP Refresher:
CLP creates a rebuttable presumption against asylum for many entrants at the Southwestern Border unless they:
(a) used an authorized pathway (historic CBP One);
(b) can show language/tech barriers to using it, or
(c) meet “exceptionally compelling circumstances” (acute medical emergency; imminent/extreme threat; severe trafficking). Screening still allows withholding/CAT if asylum is barred. Preserve the legal record and evidence for rebuttal.
For more information, please see the CIL research guides on the Circumvetion of Lawful Pathways Rule, and the Family Unity Exception.
Journey
This section documents everything from the first exit point to arrival at the U.S. border. Its job is to establish why “lawful pathways” were unavailable or unsafe, to record attempts to present at a port of entry (and any turn-backs), and to surface facts for CLP exceptions/rebuttal (acute emergencies, imminent threats, severe trafficking, language/tech barriers, third-country denials). Detailing routes (e.g., Nicaragua-to-U.S.), smugglers’ control, violence, and coercion demonstrate the lack of real alternatives and strengthen both asylum eligibility and CLP defenses. Your objective is to elicit the facts needed to show non-applicability, exceptions, or rebuttal under the CLP rule—and to demonstrate why lawful pathways were not realistically available or safe.
Route & Transit Countries
List every country/city/checkpoint in order; how long in each; where you slept.
Did you try to seek asylum or other protection in any transit country? If not, why not (no procedure, corruption, refoulement, violence, LGBTQ+ criminalization, prior attacks, family risk)?
Where were you lawfully present vs. undocumented? What happened if you approached police/officials/NGOs?
Attempts to Access Lawful Pathways
Port-of-entry (POE) attempts: when/where, what happened (turn-backs/waits), any photos/notes/witness contacts.
CBP One (historical): if before the app’s sunset—languages you speak, device access, help received, errors, screenshots.
After the app’s discontinuation: continued POE attempts, documentation of queues/denials, and any officer statements.
When the CLP Presumption Might Not Attach (ask if any apply)
DHS permission/travel authorization/parole preclearance? Proof?
Presented with an appointment (historic) or couldn’t use the app due to language/tech barriers—what specifically blocked you; what evidence remains (photos, logs, affidavits)?
Prior asylum denial in a third country (get the paper trail).
Rebutting the Presumption: “Exceptionally Compelling Circumstances”
Acute medical emergency at/near entry (diagnoses, records, medications).
Imminent and extreme threats (rape, kidnapping, torture, murder): who, where, weapons, words used, how you escaped.
Severe trafficking: recruitment, transport/harboring, coercion (debt, threats, document seizure), labor/sex exploitation; contacts with NGOs or law enforcement.
Other compelling circumstances of comparable gravity—spell them out; capture evidence.
Smugglers/Guides (“Coyotes”), Coercion, and Violence
Who arranged each leg? How contacted? Rules imposed; what happened if someone disobeyed.
Were the smugglers armed? Did they restrict movement, confiscate documents/phones, or threaten/sell people?
Rival group conflicts, kidnappings, injuries/deaths you witnessed; ransoms; who paid; outcomes.
Nicaragua route prompts (if applicable): why Nicaragua, who met you there, path through Central America, which border crossings, how you were treated.
Coyotes, Control, and CLP rebuttal
Many clients move through loosely affiliated coyote networks that operate like a relay—handing people off at borders or terrain features (e.g., river crossings). These groups often keep strict control, treat migrants like commodities, and are armed—both to fend off rival crews that poach travelers for ransom/payment and to coerce compliance (seizing phones/docs, threats, confinement). People frequently hire them out of desperation or misunderstanding, only to realize en route that they are not free to leave. Near the U.S. border, coyotes typically avoid ports of entry for their own operational security and force crossings between ports under duress. Documenting these facts supports CLP rebuttal—showing no realistic lawful pathway and “exceptionally compelling circumstances” (including imminent/extreme threats and severe trafficking) that explain why a lawful presentation at a designated port of entry was not possible.
U.S. Entry & Processing
This section anchors jurisdictional and procedural facts: where/how the client entered (POE vs. between ports), whether they expressed fear to an officer, and what documents or outcomes followed (NTA, parole, CFI/HARP decisions, detention details). The purpose is to align the paper trail with the narrative, preserve any evidence of attempted lawful presentation, and preempt government arguments by showing the client’s good-faith efforts within the current system. These answers also set up next steps in court or with USCIS.
Essential questions
Where/how did you enter (POE name or between ports)?
Did you express fear to an officer? What exactly did you say?
What documents did officers give you (NTA, parole/I-94, CFI/HARP paperwork)? Outcomes and dates.
Detention: location(s), duration, conditions, medical issues, family separation, access to counsel.
Future Harm & Fear of Return
This section proves the forward-looking element: who would target the client if returned, why, and what would likely happen. It connects past persecution to ongoing risk, incorporates post-departure threats or reprisals, and rebuts internal relocation by explaining why nowhere in the country is safe. The goal is to present a specific, credible fear grounded in the persecutor’s reach and country conditions—completing the narrative arc from discrimination and persecution, to flight, to ongoing danger if forced back.
Essential questions
If you returned now, who would target you and why? What would they likely do?
What has happened to similarly situated people since you left (relatives, colleagues, co-activists)?
Any new threats or actions against family/friends back home tied to you?
Why can’t you safely live elsewhere in your country (prior attempts, networks that can find you, national reach of persecutor, discrimination/unrest)?
State Protection & Internal Relocation
Did you previously seek protection from authorities? What happened?
Is there any realistic and safe internal relocation option? Where, and why not?
Are the persecutors connected to, protected by, or tolerated by authorities? How do you know?
State Protection & Internal Relocation
Did you previously seek protection from authorities? What happened?
Is there any realistic and safe internal relocation option? Where, and why not?
Are the persecutors connected to, protected by, or tolerated by authorities? How do you know?
Frequently Asked Questions
1) What’s the goal of this asylum interview question bank?
To help attorneys build a credible, court-focused narrative: establish nexus, show escalation from discrimination to persecution, lock timelines for flight and journey, and develop CLP exceptions/rebuttal and Family Unity eligibility.
2) How is discrimination different from persecution, and why cover a discrimination history?
Discrimination alone doesn’t meet the legal threshold, but documenting a long pattern (education, work, policing, mobility limits) shows foreseeability, motive, and escalation—often explaining the client’s later political activation and targeted persecution.
3) Why is the “moment of recognition” important?
It’s the client’s turning point—when remaining meant serious risk to life or liberty. A clear account distinguishes persecution-driven flight from economic migration and sets up a proportionate preparation-to-departure timeline.
4) What counts as “preparations to depart,” and why do they matter?
Passports/visas, money transfers, safehouses, childcare, digital hygiene, transport planning. These specifics add realism, strengthen credibility, and explain why the client left as fast (or as cautiously) as they did.
5) What should the “flight” section prove?
That the departure event flowed logically from the decision to flee: triggers, route to the first staging point, checkpoints, bribes/detentions, and efforts to avoid detection—plus early evidence anchors (tickets, stamps, chats).
6) Which journey details are critical under the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways (CLP) rule?
Transit countries and status, attempts to use lawful pathways (POE presentations; if relevant, appointment apps and barriers), third-country asylum attempts/denials, coercion by smugglers, emergencies, threats, and trafficking indicators.
7) Do clients need an appointment app record to qualify for asylum?
Not necessarily. Document any attempts to present at a port of entry, plus language/tech barriers if an app was relevant. If the app was unavailable, show good-faith POE attempts and why lawful presentation wasn’t realistically possible.
8) How do coyote networks and coercion affect CLP analysis?
Relay-style smuggling networks often keep strict control, use threats, and avoid ports for their own security—sometimes forcing crossings between ports. These facts can support CLP rebuttal (imminent/extreme threats, severe trafficking, lack of viable lawful pathway).
9) What journey evidence should we collect?
Tickets/boarding passes; remittance receipts; WhatsApp/Signal threads; photos of queues, encampments, injuries; third-country decisions; clinic/police/NGO letters; affidavits from co-travelers; device logs/screenshots.
10) What if the client can’t recall exact dates or lacks documents?
Use anchors (elections, holidays, receipts, medical visits), keep the sequence consistent, and corroborate with multiple small proofs (messages, call logs, geo-tagged photos) to shore up credibility.
11) How do we prove nexus to a protected ground?
Elicit persecutors’ words and acts showing motive (slurs, accusations, references to group/politics), tie those to the client’s identity/activities, and connect them to state tolerance or involvement.
12) When does the Family Unity Exception apply?
When the client received withholding (or CAT) but would have been granted asylum but for CLP, and has a qualifying spouse/child (accompanying or abroad to follow-to-join). Gather relationship proof and show why asylum (derivatives, stability, LPR path) is essential.
Need Help with an Asylum Claim?
We bring national-security credentials to the toughest asylum cases—clients with war-zone histories, ties to irregular warfare units, and exposure from high-risk political activity and associations. We know how to translate complex operational backgrounds into credible, court-ready narratives while safeguarding sensitive details and building CLP/Family Unity pathways.
See Also:
CIL Guide to the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule
CIL Guide to Defending Against CLP Arguments in Removal Proceedings
CIL Guide to the Family Unity Exception to the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule
