No worries! Most people don't know because it's confusing and a bit counterintuitive. Also, people almost never talk about affirmative asylum outside of maybe immigration attorney forums.
So, it's complicated. The process for affirmative asylum is:
1) Person arrives in U.S., either via visa, humanitarian parole, or by crossing the border and just wasn't caught by ICE (extremely rare nowadays). Mostly people enter on visas or are paroled in.
2) Person files an asylum application with USCIS. USCIS processes this and sends the case to a USCIS field office.
3) An interview is conducted. This is where it's different from an application in court - USCIS interviews are non-adversarial. There's no prosecutor/other side, no cross examination, etc. Just an asylum officer asking the applicant questions to get his or her story. In that sense, it may be theoretically "easier" to win with USCIS (though in my experience, your mileage may vary. Very dependent on individual officers who in my opinion are inclined to lean towards "not grant" because of step 4)
4) If asylum is granted, the person is designated an asylee. If not granted, the applicant is referred to the Immigration Court, where they have a second shot to try their case.
This was a long answer that basically is an "it depends." With USCIS you have two chances to win your case, the first in a non-adversarial environment (whereas those who cross the border and are caught and pass their credible fear interview are referred immediately to the Immigration Court).
Practically, there's a lot more transparency with the Immigration Court. People have set hearing and trial dates and if there's huge delays, a person can request that their trial date be advanced. Even if not advanced, a person can see specifically on paper when their hearing date is. With USCIS it's just a black box of "still processing."
Apologies for not knowing this but does that mean that one is more likely or less likely to have their asylum claim granted. Apologies for not knowing
No worries! Most people don't know because it's confusing and a bit counterintuitive. Also, people almost never talk about affirmative asylum outside of maybe immigration attorney forums.
So, it's complicated. The process for affirmative asylum is:
1) Person arrives in U.S., either via visa, humanitarian parole, or by crossing the border and just wasn't caught by ICE (extremely rare nowadays). Mostly people enter on visas or are paroled in.
2) Person files an asylum application with USCIS. USCIS processes this and sends the case to a USCIS field office.
3) An interview is conducted. This is where it's different from an application in court - USCIS interviews are non-adversarial. There's no prosecutor/other side, no cross examination, etc. Just an asylum officer asking the applicant questions to get his or her story. In that sense, it may be theoretically "easier" to win with USCIS (though in my experience, your mileage may vary. Very dependent on individual officers who in my opinion are inclined to lean towards "not grant" because of step 4)
4) If asylum is granted, the person is designated an asylee. If not granted, the applicant is referred to the Immigration Court, where they have a second shot to try their case.
This was a long answer that basically is an "it depends." With USCIS you have two chances to win your case, the first in a non-adversarial environment (whereas those who cross the border and are caught and pass their credible fear interview are referred immediately to the Immigration Court).
Practically, there's a lot more transparency with the Immigration Court. People have set hearing and trial dates and if there's huge delays, a person can request that their trial date be advanced. Even if not advanced, a person can see specifically on paper when their hearing date is. With USCIS it's just a black box of "still processing."