«Russian Punitive Agencies Keep a Close Eye on Deportees from the US»

- News about the latest major deportation flight from the US to Russia came from you. How does such information get to RADR?

- We unite about two dozen pro-democracy antiwar Russian communities in the US and are in constant contact with asylum seekers who are in immigration jails. When we created our organization in 2021, migration issues weren’t at all our focus: we planned to develop our communities in the US and help those who remained in Russia. But in 2024, we were horrified to discover that the Biden administration had drastically changed the rules for admitting refugees at the Mexican border—and Russians requesting asylum at the southern border began to be placed en masse in immigration jails, so-called detentions.

Originally, these immigration jails were meant for the short-term holding of refugees and people being deported from the US. But Russians began to be held there for quite a long time: people who crossed the border last year are still in detention—that’s already a year and a half. And unfortunately, long-term detention leads to denial of asylum, because people in jail have far fewer opportunities to prepare for court than those at liberty. It’s hard to gather evidence, work through your story, make it clearer and more convincing. Not to mention that even if someone has their own funds, they can’t use them outside the immigration jail. That is, they can’t even hire a lawyer or get a paid consultation.

- How many people from the last group sent through Cairo to Domodedovo reached out to you?

- I’ll be careful here, since these people are now in Russia. From previous deportations, punitive agencies (I can’t bring myself to call them law enforcement) keep a close watch on those deported from the US. I’ll just say that we were in touch with several people [from the last flight] even before they were deported. Also, our wards who are still in detention spoke with them and knew when they were being transferred to the transit detention in Arizona. By the way, previous deportations were from Louisiana: there’s a transit detention in Alexandria—the prisoners call it the “detention station”: new people arrive there and are immediately taken for deportation, it’s a constant flow. This time it was a similar detention, but in Arizona.

The transfer of Russians from jails in southern states to this detention in Phoenix began about a week before the December 7 deportation. We began to get reports that a major deportation was being prepared—not one or two people on a commercial flight, as usual, but dozens. It was obvious this was one of the large special deportation flights. And this was the fourth such deportation this year—the previous one happened in September, but we had no prior contact with anyone from that flight. Most likely, in September, the authorities deported people who had crossed the border very recently.

I’ll guess that the December deportation was the last major one this year. We roughly understand how the American government works: two weeks remain before Christmas, then New Year’s—it’s problematic to organize something like this right before the holidays.

There may still be individual deportations, but I hope there won’t be any more large ones. I say “hope” intentionally, because we are working on cases of people who lost their court cases, were denied on appeal, and are at risk of removal. Now we’re working very closely with them and with lawyers, organizing document submissions together, so we hope we’ll have enough time to help these people.

- So, despite all the information about what awaits them in the US, Russians are still crossing the border in Mexico hoping for political asylum? How big is this flow now?

- Yes, Russians are trying to cross the border and request asylum. But if before, under Biden, tens of thousands were crossing daily, under the Trump administration they report only dozens per month, so the flow is completely incomparable. There are a lot of refusals, people are arrested at the border. But we also see the opposite, when people successfully pass their fear interviews, enter the court system, and get individual hearings. We’ve had several requests for legal help from such people. It’s quite surprising. On one hand, the Trump administration says it wants to eliminate this mechanism entirely, but it hasn’t been fully eliminated, just severely restricted. The flow of people is minimized, but not cut off.

- Maybe the Trump administration will now start accepting ultraright refugees who are more politically sympathetic to him?

- Judging by the rhetoric of President Trump and his top officials, they want to minimize migration from African, Arab, and Latin American countries. At the same time, we see that the difficulties Ukrainians and Russians have faced are still unresolved. We hope—and are working toward—that some gestures of goodwill toward Russian refugees will be made, but so far we see no major shift from the Biden administration’s policy.

Those Russians who were put in immigration jail under Biden are still there. Their conditions are extremely harsh. Even six months in detention is very stressful for people, and a year and a half or more is a severe ordeal.

At the same time, I can say that our attempts to resolve this situation are met with sympathy from American politicians and executive agencies. Let’s say, we don’t see a closed door—we see a different attitude and attempts to understand the situation with Russians. At least, there is a desire to do something.

- Who is showing this desire?

- I’ll refrain from details for now, because the situation is developing. Our partners are both members of Congress and executive branch representatives. They are trying to figure out and find mechanisms to save those in danger.

- Are these Democratic Party representatives?

- Republicans too. I understand skepticism toward Republicans, but as a civic organization in the US, we have to focus on a nonpartisan approach. Among legislative initiatives related to Russia—whether sanctions or support for Ukraine—the most successful have been bipartisan. For any administration, whether Biden’s White House or Trump’s, it’s a signal: not only opponents support this initiative, but also members of my own party. The same goes for the executive branch: now the White House is under a Republican president, but we can’t say there’s no response from the State Department or other agencies. There is a response, and I know for sure that the August deportation, during which deserter Artyom Vovchenko was arrested in Russia, caused some shock in those circles. This wasn’t specially planned [by US authorities], there was no intent for Artyom to be arrested in Russia—but there are certain mechanisms we have to deal with, and changing them is not easy.

- Let me remind readers that Artyom Vovchenko was the second person arrested in Russia after deportation from the US, and the first was Leonid Melekhin, whose story launched our campaign on “Most” against deportations from Trump to Putin. What have you heard from those who made it to Moscow this week—what’s happening to them now? Any new arrests?

- The Prosecutor General’s Office reported the arrest of one person on fraud charges. This was not a politically motivated arrest—at least, we haven’t seen any so far. And what happened on arrival was similar to previous deportations—people go through intensive interrogations, their devices—phones, computers—are checked, files are examined.

People are asked about their views, whom they support, who they had contact with and what in the US, etc.So for anyone who can pass information to people facing deportation from the US, it’s important to understand: you need to be ready for these questions and have a formula for answering them.

For example, people often say they were in America for work, something didn’t work out—their visa or status expired—and the US authorities sent them back. That’s a universal formula that Russians, including punitive agencies, understand. After that, it depends on whether they can latch onto something.

Here, as with any interrogation, you need to answer calmly, confidently, without drawing attention or being overly nervous. But unfortunately, we know of attempts to dig deeper. There’s information that at such interrogations, among three or four security officers, there’s a separate person presenting as a psychologist. So the interrogation is not just conducted by FSB border officers.

- What happens next to people released from the airport? Do they feel watched? And in general, for many people from these flights, it’s simply unsafe to stay in Russia—do they try to leave for somewhere else besides the US?

- The first thing to note: deportees who go through such hours-long interrogations are very worried. We’ve heard speculation that their devices may have been infected with spyware after being in the hands of security officers. We know that after people were released from airports, some were summoned to local security agencies—police or FSB—for “preventive” interviews, were questioned. So, people don’t feel completely safe.

We understand that the punitive system treats deportees as potential subjects for further work. And I think local agencies may analyze their pasts. So far, there have been no cases of additional charges after deportation, but we do see interest from the security agencies.

The deportees themselves feel this. Some decide to leave the country. We know of some successful cases.

- What resources does RADR have to help Russians detained and held in detention by US authorities? How do you help, besides spreading information? Can you influence the situation by contacting authorities directly—what’s called government relations (GR)?

- Practical help for detainees and their families, establishing contact between them, is a core part of our work. In 2024, a common situation was: a husband and wife request asylum, the husband is placed in one detention center, the wife in another, in a different state. This separates their immigration processes—they’re no longer a single case, but two, and judges treat them individually. Communication is difficult; each must request their own detention to be connected by phone. Usually, they can talk only once every two weeks, and only if there’s no failure and the person answers the call. So we organize communication between family members and help them reach relatives who may have [needed for court] documents.

Second—we provide free translations for people in detention. Immigration courts don’t accept documents in foreign languages—all must be translated by certified translators into English before being added to a case. So we have a group of translators who volunteer in their spare time to translate refugees’ documents.

Third is finding legal help. We’re not lawyers ourselves, but we can communicate with lawyers and recommend them to refugees. This is what we raise money for. We fund one-time consultations, and sometimes hire immigration lawyers for refugees who can’t afford them.

Currently, we’re working on a case of opposition antiwar refugees, a mother and son who unfortunately lost their immigration court case. They were denied asylum despite criminal prosecution in Russia, and we funded their appeal.

We’re also constantly looking for pro bono lawyers—our media work helps with this. For example, after my appearance on CNN, a Russian-speaking lawyer contacted us and said, “I saw your interview, I haven’t worked with Russian refugees yet, but I’d like to help.” He’s now handling the case of an opposition antiwar refugee who ended up in detention and couldn’t pay for a lawyer. Her hearing is scheduled for December, and we hope for a positive outcome.

There are cases when we found pro bono help from Alina Katz’s law office in New York. We have a good partnership with them, and we’re very grateful that they took on several of our clients for free, saw their cases through—and these refugees got asylum. In some cases, Alina’s office gives serious discounts, understanding the situation of people in immigration jail. Just recently, we had a refugee couple who spent a year in detention: they ended up with a very incompetent lawyer who just abandoned them mid-process—stopped responding after they couldn’t pay. We arranged a consultation with Alina Katz’s office, they understood their situation, took the case with a big discount—and at the end of November, the couple received asylum and was released from detention the next day.

The fourth element of practical help—we collect various reports and articles for immigration cases. Our volunteers help with requests, for example, of a medical nature, with transfers from one detention to another, with merging cases. Based on this information, we wrote complaints about detention conditions, and on some cases appealed to members of Congress.

As for GR—that’s communication with Congress.

We see a willingness to help from Republicans, not just Democrats. Republicans say: yes, we’re not ready to go against President Trump’s agenda, but within that agenda, we’re ready to interact and help if needed.

So I think this communication will turn into action. The same goes for executive agencies. I’m not authorized to give details and unfortunately can’t speak in depth, but such cooperation exists and is very close. For example, on deportations, we do briefings because some agencies don’t have the operational information we have.

Immigration lawyers often use publications [in the US press] that were made as a result of our work. This wasn’t our original goal, but it’s an important side effect of RADR’s activities. We also see that authorities respond to such publications. The reaction isn’t always positive—for example, the New York Times article about Artyom Vovchenko was received very negatively by the Department of Homeland Security. But we separate public rhetoric from real actions. The main thing is that publications help executive agencies pay attention to the problem and take it more seriously.

- Within the executive branch there is ICE—the US immigration police, which gained broad powers after Bush’s counterterrorism policies following September 11, 2001. Essentially, its task is to fight threats to national security. And the more time passes, the more this agency fights threats as it sees fit. Is it even possible to achieve anything institutionally in these conditions? Or is all you can do to hit specific points to avoid cases like Melekhin and Vovchenko?

- The first thing to do, and what we ask for, is to stop holding Russians en masse in detention. This practice was introduced by the Biden administration. We understand why it was done. It was a national security issue for the Biden administration. They decided not to distinguish between Russian intelligence agents and Russian refugees. They decided to jail everyone crossing the border and sort it out later.

This policy needs to be changed. I understand the importance of national security. For any country, these issues must be a priority. However, I believe that cooperation with Russian civil society and human rights organizations can help verify specific cases. If it’s necessary to detain some suspicious people, that can be done on a targeted basis. But not as broadly as it has been.

And those who have already spent a year or a year and a half in detention fully deserve release and for their immigration stories to be considered while free.

Second, we see that some immigration judges don’t understand what opposition, antiwar political activism in Russia is. To quote one judge: “I don’t see anything terrible about you having a criminal case opened in Russia. It’s just a criminal case, not a court verdict. The court may review the case and, say, close it or take your side. A criminal case doesn’t mean anything yet.“ And this is a criminal case for donating to Ukraine. Yet we understand that in Russia, a criminal case for donating to Ukraine or for ”fakes“ about the army is unlikely to end in acquittal.

But immigration judges phrase their decisions like this. We heard a judge tell someone: “You supported Navalny, but Navalny is already dead—so you’re not in any danger.” Another refugee was told: “Yes, you did opposition activity online, but you did it for PR, so I’m denying you asylum.” Even though this person has criminal cases in Russia, is listed as a terrorist and extremist, and is wanted. We believe that such judicial decisions must be brought to the attention of those who can influence the situation—for example, the US House Judiciary Committee. They need to understand how the system works, how Justice Department judges work.

What does Congress do? It passes laws and oversees their implementation. The oversight function of Congress is what the diaspora and organizations like us can influence. And that’s what we’re trying to do.

Some human rights advocates in America are trying to close immigration jails. First, I think that’s unrealistic under current circumstances, and second, it’s not what we should be doing. Our top priority is to get people out of detention—they’ve been there too long, such prolonged detention is unjustified and unmotivated. Our job is to make sure judges understand their cases well.

Another task is monitoring immigration lawyers. We’ve already built a whole database of unqualified immigration lawyers. Something must be done about this, because often asylum refusals are due to poor representation. What some of them do is a disgrace and a violation of all professional norms. They stop communicating with clients, don’t send documents on time, miss deadlines. People are simply thrown into the grinder. That is, of course, absolutely unacceptable. Such immigration lawyers must be held accountable.

- Don’t you want to publish your blacklist so people know which lawyers to avoid?

- We’re thinking about it, but we understand this would likely trigger some kind of attack on us. We’re a civic organization with very limited resources, while immigration firms often have far more resources than we do. They have much more ability to initiate lawsuits. So we have to be ready that some of our actions may provoke unwanted reactions. We’re thinking about how to be helpful without harming ourselves.

- Dmitry, how long have you been in the States?

- My wife and colleague Nadya and I have been here for 14 years.

- How has the attitude toward migrants and asylum seekers in US government agencies changed since 2011? You must have observed this yourself?

- We came as students, so our story and that of our colleagues was very different at first. So when our organization started its first projects in 2021, we didn’t deal with immigration processes. Although half our activists, if not more, are recent political refugees. So for them, of course, these issues are relevant.

Visa issues became more complicated after the annexation of Crimea: then began diplomatic wars, embassy staff cuts, and so on. After the full-scale invasion [of Ukraine], the situation became extremely difficult. Nevertheless, throughout 2022, 2023, and half of 2024, there was a functioning mechanism for requesting asylum at the US-Mexico border. Poorly, but it worked. And now we see in retrospect that its poor functioning became a problem for Trump voters.

For example, during Biden’s presidency, there was a charity that brought refugees from Mexico to the US by bus across the border. It did this under the pretext of charity, getting certain permissions from the Department of Homeland Security. But in Mexico, it commercialized the process, and a bus seat cost $2,500 to $3,000. Everyone knew this; it was advertised in Russian-language chats. Even then I thought it was outrageous, illegal, and corrupt. The average Trump voter from the heartland saw it as madness.

So there was a strong demand to fix the border situation, and it was based on real problems. It was obvious that the border situation was being used by authoritarian countries, enemies of America. Fixing this was necessary. But unfortunately, the fix affected those who really needed help: people facing criminal prosecution in Russia, repressed for their views. And that’s the imbalance we’re trying to address. Yes, it’s important to protect borders and national security, but there are people who genuinely need help, who truly seek asylum, and subjecting them to even greater ordeals is unjust.

- Is it possible that among those deported to Russia there are Russian intelligence agents? Or do they successfully pass immigration courts and disappear into American everyday life?

- No such information so far. We know there have been arrests in detention on suspicion of working for Russian intelligence. And that’s right, we can only welcome that. If we get any information of that kind, we’ll gladly share it with US law enforcement. Because as a community, we must work to separate ourselves from the dictatorship.

This is perhaps one of our fundamental projects: separating ourselves from the dictatorship. We are different, we’re not like them, we should be treated differently.

Members of our antiwar communities are people who need help, not those who should be put in immigration jails and subjected to further repression. And here we have big difficulties, because this work of separating ourselves from the dictatorship is collective work. And for now, we’re doing it, so to speak, individually.

We don’t have a mass Russian opposition movement. It’s very fragmented, heterogeneous, with internal feuds. And this doesn’t help people who need assistance.

We would be much more effective if we acted together, coordinated efforts. And these efforts should be directed at what I’m talking about: separating ourselves from the dictatorship and showing that we are different, that all our aspirations are for rapprochement with the West, with Europe, that Russia and Russians are a European nation by values, by spirit. Yes, there are people in Russia who support the dictatorship, but that’s not us.

I believe that the difficulties Russians now face in Europe are due to the same reason.

Europeans still don’t see how to distinguish pro-European, democratic Russians from those living under dictatorship and influenced by propaganda.

For example, we talk to Congress about Russian refugees’ difficulties—and hear in response that many issues related to Russians in Congress are, one way or another, tied to our attitude toward Ukraine and Ukrainians.

Our organization has helped Ukraine since the start of the war. We have a major project called Freedom Birds for Ukraine, which provides humanitarian aid [to Ukraine] and helps Ukrainian soldiers. We participate in Ukrainian advocacy campaigns in the US Congress... but we realize that’s not enough, that other factors outweigh Ukrainians’ attitudes toward us. Both what the dictatorship does and our actions—all go into the mix.

From the perspective of US or European authorities, there’s no clear idea of who we are, what we do, whether we’re a factor in this war and confrontation with the dictatorship—and what kind of factor. Do we aid Russian aggression or oppose it?

I think we need to declare as much as possible that we are a force of resistance, a force supporting the good. And hope that the attitude toward people seeking protection in the West will become more sympathetic.