Midyear Meeting

Climate migrants deserve stronger protections, ABA House says

  •  
  •  
  •  
  • Print

immigration law

The ABA House of Delegates called for increased protection for immigrants in a pair of resolutions at the ABA Midyear Meeting in Phoenix on Monday. (Image from Shutterstock)

The ABA House of Delegates called for increased protection for immigrants in a pair of resolutions at the ABA Midyear Meeting in Phoenix on Monday.

Resolution 600 urges the U.S. government to introduce new or expand existing immigration pathways for people who must relocate to the United States because of the effects of climate change. It also urges the federal government to support vulnerable countries and communities in their efforts to combat climate-related displacement.

In introducing the resolution, Michelle Jacobson, the chair of the ABA Commission on Immigration, said the United States has no permanent immigration protections available to people who are displaced by climate change.

“The U.S. currently has some immigration programs for migrants that are presently ill-equipped to manage climate migration en masse,” Jacobson said. “But the U.S. can change its programs to offer at least temporary benefits, specifically to those who are addressing climate-related migration.”

The United Nations’ Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre identified natural disasters as the leading cause of global displacement in 2018, according to the report that accompanies the resolution. It shows that 17.2 million people were displaced because of hurricanes, floods or other disasters that year.

Data from the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Refugees shows that nearly 25 million people in 140 countries were displaced because of weather-related incidents in 2019, the report also says. The agency predicts that climate change and natural disasters could increase the number of global displacements to more than 200 million per year by 2050.

To better protect climate migrants, the United States could expand existing asylum law—a potential pathway to permanent residence and citizenship—or apply temporary protected status, deferred enforced departure and humanitarian parole as other forms of relief, the report says.

Beyond expanding existing law, the U.S. Congress could pass the Refugee Protection Act or the Climate Displaced Persons Act. These pending bills provide permanent immigration pathways for climate migrants.

Resolution 600 builds on a measure that the House adopted in 2019. It encouraged states and entities working to implement the United Nations’ Global Compact on Refugees and Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration to address the root causes of displacement and forced migration.

The Commission on Immigration submitted the measure, which the House overwhelmingly adopted. The International Law Section and the Civil Rights and Social Justice Section were co-sponsors.

“There has to be a system for evaluating humanitarian protection for migrants,” said Nancy Kaymar Stafford, a delegate from the International Law Section, who spoke in favor of Resolution 600. “The international system needs to address migration that does not fall under the typical, traditional definition of a refugee.”

“These people face a risk of harm that is not persecution but it is still a risk of harm,” she added.

Follow along with the ABA Journal’s coverage of the 2025 ABA Midyear Meeting here.

Addressing ineffective assistance of counsel

The Commission on Immigration also proposed Resolution 601, which urges the federal government to enact laws, policies and regulations related to ineffective assistance of counsel that promote due process and ensure consistency in immigration proceedings.

To achieve this end, the resolution recommends extending to immigration proceedings the standard set for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel in Strickland v. Washington, a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case. It also calls for the removal of the current requirement that noncitizens with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim file a bar complaint against their former attorneys.

“I trust we all agree that the right to effective assistance of counsel is imperative in the legal profession,” said Jacobson, who also introduced Resolution 601.

Under the Strickland standard, people who claim ineffective assistance of counsel can obtain relief by showing that their attorney’s “representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” They must also show that their attorney’s deficient performance deprived them of a fair trial.

Four years after the Supreme Court’s Strickland decision, the Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals published Matter of Lozada. It implemented additional procedural requirements for noncitizens with ineffective assistance of counsel claims, including that their filing include “whether a complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities with respect to any violation of counsel’s ethical or legal responsibilities, and if not, why not.”

“While on the face Lozada does not explicitly require that a noncitizen with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim file a state bar complaint with their former counsel, in practice, U.S. immigration courts have required it in order to accept the motion to reopen [a case],” Jacobson said. “The Lozada standard is far more arduous than the Supreme Court standard and negatively impacts respondents, attorneys and disciplinary bodies alike.”

Karen Grisez, a delegate from the American Immigration Lawyers Association, also spoke in favor of Resolution 601. She noted that the American Immigration Lawyers Association has been involved in trying to set aside the Lozada requirement for years.

“It is just an additional obstacle that is unnecessary for people who have already been poorly served by counsel,” Grisez said.

The U.S. Senate is currently considering the Strengthening Immigration Procedures Act, which eliminates the bar complaint requirement for ineffective assistance of counsel claims in immigration proceedings and mandates application of the Strickland standard.

The report that accompanies Resolution 601 says the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review and the Department of Homeland Security also could release joint regulations removing the requirement and bringing immigration law in line with Strickland.

The House overwhelmingly adopted Resolution 601. The International Law Section co-sponsored the measure.