Preparing for an Asylum Hearing: a Student’s Perspective

Beth Braiterman

Most of my hearing prep involved crafting the direct questions, practicing them with our client, S, and refining the questions so as to elicit the most helpful testimony. We went through many drafts, and I truly appreciate all of the feedback I got from my supervising attorney, Lisa and my clinical partner, Patrick, as well as from the other IRC students.

At the beginning of hearing prep, I was struck by how awkward and difficult direct exam can feel; it’s a conversation consisting of one open-ended question after another. I didn’t fully understand how much I would need to practice to feel comfortable with this format. Emotionally, I struggled with asking S to repeat her traumatic experiences over and over again. Patrick, S, and I have spent so much time building trust and rapport with one another, and it took her a while to open up to us when we were writing the declaration.

Knowing how painful this was for S made the situation all the more difficult for me. You could see the pain on her face when she had to tell us the details about the physical trauma and abuse she suffered as we prepared for the hearing. As we discussed in class, there are benefits and drawbacks to eliciting emotional testimony on the stand. Ultimately, S decided that she did want to share all of the facts, in the hopes that doing so would increase the likelihood of her being granted asylum.

I am very glad that Lisa encouraged us to check in with S right before the final moot with S. For about 10-15 minutes, S, Patrick, and I talked about how S was feeling. We emphasized that we knew how difficult this was for her. We also discussed deep breathing techniques that she could use on the stand. Finally, we spent a good amount of time emphasizing how much proof S already had provided to the court—from her written declaration, to the letters, to the expert testimony and exhibits. I think this discussion served as a real turning point, in part because it made S understand that we understood how difficult this was for her. I also think it helped build her confidence, because it allowed her to see the direct exam as just one piece of her asylum case. And I think, by the end, she understood that this was her chance to tell her story, and that we were going to be there with her as she did so. The final moot ended up being a great success.

During the hearing, S explained how people from her childhood tormented her on account of her identity. She discussed how her gender identity made her a target of horrific violence as an adult and how there was nowhere to turn to for help in her country. And it was powerful (at least from my perspective) to see S take the stand and present herself proudly as a woman who seems confident in her body.

The most powerful part of the hearing came after the government finished cross, when the judge prepared to give her final order. When the judge told S to put the headphones on, I helped her, and then she grabbed my hand. It felt like we were a team, and I was honored that she felt comfortable reaching out to me for support as she awaited the decision about whether or not she would be granted asylum. Seeing her break down in tears when the Judge announced that she got asylum is something I will never forget. I am ecstatic that she can remain here lawfully and permanently and live proudly and safely.


Beth Braiterman, ’19 and Patrick Kennedy, ’19 worked with their client for two quarters as students in the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic. They drafted and filed her hearing brief and supporting documents, prepared their client for testimony, and represented her at San Francisco Immigration Court, leading to a victory for their client who was granted asylum.