Missouri Senate Candidates Vie for Who Hates Asylum Seekers More

by Jason Dzubow

Asylum tends to be one of the less controversial areas of immigration law, and rarely attracts the kind of anger associated with the broader immigration debate.  However, a 20-year old asylum case has become an issue in the Missouri Senate race. 

The Kansas City Star reports that Democrats have accused the Republican candidate, Roy Blunt, of “hypocricy” because he employed and tried to assist an “illegal worker” named Dora Narvaez, a Nicaraguan asylum seeker.  Apparently, Mr. Blunt employed Ms. Narvaez as a housekeeper for six months in 1990 and then contacted the head of INS to help her with her asylum case.  At the time, Mr. Blunt was Missouri’s Secretary of State.  Mr. Blunt’s campaign denies the allegations, and states that he forwarded Ms. Narvaez’s request for assistance, just as he did for anyone else from Missouri. 

It’s unclear to me how the Democrats have determined that Ms. Narvaez was an “illegal worker.”  Aliens who filed for asylum prior to 1996 received a work permit quickly and were permitted to remain in the U.S. until their cases were adjudicated.  Thus, if Ms. Narvaez was indeed an asylum seeker, she was most likely legally eligible to work and live in the United States, and so Mr. Blunt could have lawfully employed her.  Whether or not he used his influence and connections to assist her remains an open question, but based on the evidence available, the Democrat’s charge that Ms. Narvaez was an “illegal worker” seems unfounded. 

Not that the Republicans are much better on this issue.  Mr. Blunt currently represents Southwest Missouri in the House of Representatives.  According to his Congressional website, he has opposed “amnesty” and supported an enforcement-only approach to the immigration problem.  Thus, it seems that neither candidate is much of a friend to immigrants.

Mr. Blunt currently leads his opponent, Democrat Robin Carnahan, in the polls. 

Continue reading

Remembering Louis Henkin – Architect of the 1951 Refugee Convention

by Jason Dzubow

Louis Henkin, a leading scholar in international law and foreign policy, professor emeritus at Columbia Law School, and one of the principal architects of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, died last week at age 92.

Louis Henkin (November 11, 1917 - October 14, 2010)

Prof. Henkin led a long and eventful life.  He was born Eliezer Henkin in 1917 in Belarus, the son of a prominent rabbi.  He and his family immigrated to the United States in 1923, and he eventually attended Harvard Law School. 

After law school, Prof. Henkin clerked for Judge Learned Hand before enlisting in the United States Army during World War II.  He served in the European Theater and was awarded a Silver Star for his efforts. 

After completing his military service, he clerked for Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter.

Beginning in 1948, Prof. Henkin worked for the U.S. State Department in the United Nations Bureau.  There, he helped author the 1951 Refugee Convention, the key legal document defining who is a refugee, their rights, and the legal obligations of states.

Prof. Henkin left the State Department in 1956 and began a long academic career, mostly at Columbia University where he founded the university’s Center for the Study of Human Rights in 1978 and created the Human Rights Institute in 1998.  Prof. Henkin was considered by many one of the “founding fathers” of human rights law. 

Volker Türk, director of UNHCR‘s Division of International Protection, saluted Professor Henkin for his “fundamental contribution to the early development of international refugee law and his unwavering commitment to the protection of human and refugees’ rights.”  “It is no exaggeration to say that no American was more instrumental in the development of human rights law than Lou,” said Elisa Massimino, the president and chief executive officer of Human Rights First, an organization Professor Henkin helped found in 1978 under the name Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights.  “He literally and figuratively wrote the book on human rights,” she said.

According to the New York Times, Prof. Henkin took a lofty view of his own government’s international responsibilities, but he often felt let down: “In the cathedral of human rights,” he wrote, “the United States is more like a flying buttress than a pillar — choosing to stand outside the international structure supporting the international human rights system, but without being willing to subject its own conduct to the scrutiny of that system.”

Continue reading

Amicus Brief on Protecting Mentally Disabled Respondents

by Jason Dzubow

Human Rights Watch and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP recently filed an amicus brief with the Board of Immigration Appeals in the case of an alien with a mental disability.  The brief is based on a year-long, joint investigation by HRW and the American Civil Liberties Union concerning violations of the rights of people with mental disabilities in the U.S. immigration system.  The report is called Deportation by Default: Mental Disability, Unfair Hearings, and Indefinite Detention in the US Immigration System.

Our view of the mentally ill continues to evlove, but we've still got a way to go.

In the amicus brief, HRW argues that all respondents in immigration and removal proceedings, including those with mental disabilities, are entitled to a fair hearing and a chance to defend their rights.  From the brief: 

“‘The [incompetency] doctrine [where a defendant can not stand trial if he can’t comprehend the charges against him, can’t effectively consult with counsel, and can’t assist in his defense] . . . has been characterized by the Supreme Court as ‘fundamental to an adversary system of justice.'”  Removal proceedings must respect human rights, honor U.S. human rights commitments, and ensure fair and accurate decision-making.  A fair hearing is central to the protection of a person’s rights and is the hallmark of a functioning justice system. 

To meet the right to a fair hearing guaranteed under international human rights law, meaningful safeguards are necessary to ensure such a fair hearing and protect the rights of individuals with mental disabilities.  Among these safeguards are (1) the respondent’s right to counsel, (2) the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) ability to terminate proceedings, (3) the IJ’s power to order a competency hearing, and (4) the right to be free from arbitrary and prolonged detention. 

In order to comply with international human rights obligations, individuals with mental disabilities must be guaranteed the right to counsel in removal proceedings.  Even then, in certain circumstances, if the IJ determines that a respondent with a mental disability cannot explain the reasons against expulsion, even with counsel, the IJ must be empowered to terminate proceedings. 

U.S. immigration law currently provides no right to appointed counsel for individuals with mental disabilities and remains confusingly unclear as to whether and under what circumstances an IJ may terminate proceedings or order a competency evaluation.  Moreover, in the absence of these important safeguards to ensure a fair hearing, many immigration detainees with mental disabilities remain in prolonged detention during their immigration hearings.  Accordingly, U.S. immigration law currently violates international human rights standards. 

If this case is anything like the cases I’ve litigated in the BIA, we won’t have an answer until late 2012, but it will be interesting to see whether the BIA responds in a positive way to the brief.  The power of the BIA is limited, but at a minimum, it could issue guidance about terminating cases where a respondent is unable to defend himself due to a mental disability.  However, my guess is that the laudable goals set out in the brief are above the pay grade of the BIA. 

Continue reading

Wonderful State Department Publication on Refugees

by Jason Dzubow
Eric P. Schwartz, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration

Since 1975, the United States has resettled almost 3 million refugees and asylum seekers, more than all other resettlement countries combined.  The most recent edition of the U.S. State Department’s eJournalUSA is entitled, Refugees: Building New Lives in the USA.  It presents a number of moving stories about refugees and the Americans who assist them.  From the introduction:

This eJournal USA chronicles lives of desperation and struggle but also offers examples of friendship and hope. In this issue:

• a boy is separated from his family and spends his childhood trying to elude the carnage of the Second Sudanese Civil War;

• a Cuban family of 10 faces persecution for their political beliefs in their home country;

• a young girl flees war and takes an uncertain journey across the Pacific;

• a man escapes ethnic violence in Rwanda and subsists on the street and in a refugee camp for 10 years.

All these people left their homelands and came to the United States as refugees, and all were met by American sponsors who helped them build new lives in the U.S. Through interviews and first-person accounts, our journal tells the stories of refugees who are building new homes and lives in the United States — and of those Americans who guide and help them.

Diversity and plurality are among the United States’ defining national characteristics. These national values inspire individual Americans to strengthen the country’s social fabric by welcoming and helping integrate refugees into U.S. communities. The resettled refugees in turn enrich American culture as well as the nation’s social, economic and legal framework.

The stories and articles in these pages explain the U.S. government’s commitment to help refugees and illustrate how that commitment is embodied by thousands of Americans who extend a hand to aid and befriend some of the nation’s newest — and bravest — residents.

The articles in the State Department journal highlight America at its best and remind us that our country has been greatly enriched by the refugees we have helped.  I also learned that Gloria Estefan came to the U.S. as a refugee (p. 18) and that a church in my old neighborhood helped welcome Turkish refugees from Georgia and Uzbekistan (p. 21).

Continue reading

Presidential Memo on Refugees, but What About IDPs?

by Jason Dzubow

In a Presidential Memorandum issued last Friday, President Obama has authorized the admission of up to 80,000 refugees in Fiscal Year 2011, which is pretty similar to the admissions numbers for recent years.  “Refugees” are defined as people who are outside their country of origin and have a well-founded fear of return to their homeland.  Internally displaced persons (IDPs), who have been forced from their homes but are still within the borders of their own country, do not qualify as refugees, and–with some exceptions–cannot come to the U.S. as refugees.

The distinction between refugees and IDPs has always struck me as somewhat arbitrary.  For example, it doesn’t get much attention, but according to UNHCR, there are over 3 million IDPs in Colombia.  This is significantly more than the number of IDPs displaced from more well-known conflict areas like Darfur (2 million) and Iraq (2.6 million).  The refugee admissions numbers do almost nothing to assist IDPs. 

My left foot is an IDP; my right foot is a refugee.

The only exceptions actually written into the law are for IDPs from Iraq, the former Soviet Union, and (surprise, surprise) Cuba.  Also, U.S. embassies are authorized to designate certain IDPs as refugees, but only in “exceptional circumstances.”  This means that–for example–Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 would not qualify for admission to the U.S. as refugees by virtue of the fact that they are still in their home country.  Ditto for Jews in Germany during World War II.

I’m not necessarily advocating increasing the number of refugees admitted into the U.S. every year (though I do think we can probably admit more than 80,000, which is less than 0.02% of the 42 million people displaced by conflict).  That should be a function of world-wide need and our ability to pay for and absorb the refugees.  It is determined by Congress and the President.  However, I do think we should consider including IDPs in the pool of potential refugees that will be admitted into our country.  If a person really can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in his country, he should not be prevented from resettling in the U.S. merely because he has not managed to escape from his home country.  IDPs and refugees should be treated the same for purposes of resettlement.

Continue reading

2 Comments

When Silence is Golden: Interpreters and Asylum

by Jason Dzubow
This blog entry is by ace reporter Maria Raquel McFadden.  Ms. McFadden is also a freelance business, legal, and immigration interpreter with 10 years experience.   She has interpreted in various forums including courts, immigration interviews, depositions, and business meetings.  Ms. McFadden is registered with the State of Maryland and can be reached at: Office: 202-709-3602 or Cell: 202-360-2736; mcfadden.maria@gmail.com.          
Asylum seekers are often fraught with misgivings and anxiety about providing information that they feel might make them victims of reprisals should their claim be denied.  It is important that besides being informed of attorney-client confidentiality, asylum seekers be made aware that the entirety of the asylum process is protected by confidentiality laws and regulations. Interpreters are not only bound by these rules but also by their cannon of ethics and standards, which also requires confidentiality.

Like many other professionals, interpreters must follow certain standards of practice while on the job.  Despite the fact that the number and order of cannons in the interpreters’ “Code of Ethics” can vary a bit among accrediting bodies and hiring agencies, a perennial tenet is the one of confidentiality.  

Though once in a while a very special and extraordinary circumstance might occur that can override the principle of confidentiality (such being told  directly the whereabouts of a currently kidnapped victim by a non-English or limited English speaker ), all must bear in mind that this cannon is one of the foremost importance. 
Interpreters often have access to protected, restricted, private and/or sensitive information.  The oath taken by professional interpreters to adhere to  confidentiality assures asylum seekers and all connected to the case (including witnesses) that the facts and circumstances they share with the private bar attorneys, immigration judge or immigration officers, and other U.S. government personnel will not be divulged by the interpreter to an outside party.  
No matter whether the process is an asylum hearing, a credible fear or reasonable fear determination hearing, an interpreter may not share any information he/she has learned (whether orally or in writing) before, during or after the proceeding. 
From time to time, for educational purposes, interpreters do and should share language issues that arise.  However, it is important they never share any identifying information which can include the name of the  asylum seekers, the judge, officer, or representing attorney.
Frequently during the process (at interviews at the asylum office or during attorney-client meetings for example), non-professional “interpreters” are used.  Attorneys and asylum officers should remind those interpreters of their duties in respect to confidentiality. 
When an asylum seeker understands the importance that the court, USCIS, and attorneys place on confidentiality, asylum seekers can be reassured and thus feel more comfortable disclosing all the details of their case, making the process work better for all involved.

Continue reading

Cuban Exiles in Spain Coming to the U.S.

by Jason Dzubow

In August, we reported that Spain and the Catholic Church had brokered a deal with the Cuban government to secure the release of dozens of Cuban political prisoners.  The Cubans were to be resettled in Spain.  The only problem: They wanted to come to the U.S., not Spain.  Now, it seems they will get their wish.

The AP reports that the Cuban dissidents will be coming to the United States where they will receive asylum:

The State Department is working to bring to the USA most of the 39 Cuban political prisoners exiled to Spain this summer… More than 100 family members would join them. [The] first case has been processed and nearly all are likely to accept the offer. [The] plan gets around a Catch-22 whereby Cubans who left the island were no longer considered in harm’s way, and thus not eligible for traditional asylum requests in the U.S.

Apparently, the Cubans preferred the United States because they had family and community ties here.  While I understand the desire to resettle in a country where you have connections, this is a deal that would likely not be available to asylum seekers from other countries.  Normally, once a person has asylum in one country, he is not eligible to receive asylum in the U.S.  This case reminds us that politics (here, our dislike of the Cuban government) can play a role in the asylum system. 

I have a case similar to this, where the United Nations resettled my client as a refugee in a country where the client had no community ties or friends, no knowledge of the language or culture, and no prospects for a job.  The client came to the U.S. and is now seeking asylum here.  We’ll see if the Immigration Court is as generous to my client as the State Department has been to these Cuban exiles. 

Continue reading

The Eleventh Circuit Rules on Impermissible Gay Stereotypes

by Jason Dzubow

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that an Immigration Judge improperly relied on gay stereotypes to reach an adverse credibility determination. See Todorovic v. Attorney General, Case No. 09-11652 (11th Cir. Sept. 27, 2010). 

Mladen Todorovic is a gay man from Serbian who came to the United States in 2000.  He applied for asylum in 2003, claiming to have endured several acts of persecution in Serbia on account of his sexual orientation.  Some of the persecution was perpetrated by government officials.  Mr. Todorovic was also persecuted by private individuals, but the government would not protect him.  His asylum claim was filed late, and his case was referred to the Immigration Court.

The Eleventh Circuit rules against offensive gay stereotypes. Sorry Bruno.

In his decision, the IJ stated, “[t]he Court studied the demeanor of this individual very carefully throughout his testimony in Court today, and this gentleman does not appear to be overtly gay.”  The IJ continued, “it is not readily apparent to a person who would see this gentleman for the first time that, that is the case, since he bears no effeminate traits or any other trait that would mark him as a homosexual.”  In reaching his conclusion, the IJ again noted that Mr. Todorovic “is not overtly homosexual,” and, therefore, that there was no reason to believe he would be “immediately recognized” as gay.

The Eleventh Circuit first noted that “One clearly impermissible form of conjecture and speculation, sometimes disguised as a ‘demeanor’ determination, is the use of stereotypes as a substitute for evidence.”  A number of other circuits have “rejected credibility determinations that rest on stereotypes about how persons belonging to a particular group would act, sound, or appear.”

The Court held:

As we see it, this so-called “demeanor” determination rests on wholly speculative assumptions made by the IJ; it is untethered from any evidential foundation; and it is thoroughly vague in its reference to “other trait[s]” that would mark the petitioner as a homosexual. Whatever else these offensive observations made by the fact-finder were, they were not credibility findings based on demeanor, but instead were driven by stereotypes about how a homosexual is supposed to look… The IJ’s comments elevated these ungrounded assumptions to demeanor evidence, and the IJ drew adverse inferences about the petitioner’s credibility and legal conclusions from them… These stereotypes most assuredly are not substantial evidence. They “would not be tolerated in other contexts, such as race or religion.” … We see no reason to tolerate them here.

The Court vacated the agency’s decision and remand the matter for a new hearing, “free of any impermissible stereotyping or ungrounded assumptions about how gay men are supposed to look or act.”

Continue reading

1 Comment

Are Terrorists Taking Advantage of the Asylum System?

by Jason Dzubow

In a recent broadcast on San Diego Public Radio, Amita Sharma reports on Somali asylum seekers who “are taking a suspicious route” to the United States.  This, at a time when “the Al-Qaeda-linked Somali Islamist group al-Shabab has threatened to attack the United States.” 

The asylum seekers leave Somalia for Kenya, where they obtain false passports.  From there, they travel to Cuba and then Central America, where they make their way to Mexico.  In Mexico, they surrender to the authorities and receive an expulsion document, which allows them to travel through Mexico.  The Somalis then enter the U.S. illegally and file for asylum.

According to the KPBS report, the Somalis have no identification and use the Mexican expulsion document–which is issued by the Mexican government based on the alien’s representations–as their ID when they apply for asylum.  The fear, of course, is that these Somalis are terrorists coming here to attack our country.  Federal agents say that the criminal background check performed on all asylum seekers is inadequate: “if they’ve never been to America, there won’t be any criminal record of them.”

I have represented many Africans who have traveled to the U.S. in a similar fashion.  The route often takes them through different African countries, then to South America, Central America, Mexico, and the United States.  They use one or more false passports and meet several different smugglers along the way.  The trip is circuitous and strange, and it is not clear why people pass through so many different countries (my guess is that the smugglers can get more money if they make the journey longer).

Many of my clients have been instructed to surrender to the Mexican authorities in order to obtain the “expulsion document,” which they use to prove their date of entry into the United States (aliens are only eligible for asylum if they show that they filed their application within one year of arrival; the Mexican document demonstrates that they were in Mexico on the date that the document was issued).  In my experience, the Mexican document does not–as the article states–prove the alien’s identity.  To establish identity, we submit other documents, such as school and work records, a driver’s license or a birth certificate.

Nevertheless, people are crossing our Southern border and applying for asylum, and we do not know much about them.  This certainly does present a security threat, but it must be viewed in context–Many more people cross the border, never claim asylum, and live here illegally.  Given that asylum seekers undergo a background check (albeit imperfect) and government interviews (also imperfect), it seems that any terrorist would be better off entering the U.S. and not seeking asylum.  Why initiiate contact with government authorities if you plan to engage in criminal activity? 

I can imagine scenerios where a terrorist would come here and falsely claim asylum.  However, given the level of government scrutiny involved, asylum is probably one of the least effective means for a terrorist to infiltrate our country. 

Continue reading

1 Comment

Riding for Refugees

by Jason Dzubow

Next month, thousands of bikers in Canada and the U.S. will be riding to raise money for refugees.  The event, called Ride for Refuge, takes place in more than a dozen locations in the two countries (and at least one location in Australia), and will raise money to assist refugees and others in need of refuge both locally and overseas.  The proceeds will be distributed to more than 200 churches and charities. 

Biking for refugees - Please, if you are not divine, wear a helmet.

The Ride was begun in 2004 by members of International Teams Canada, a Christian missionary group, and has thus far raised over $1.5 million.  This year, they hope to have 7,000 riders and raise an additional $1.5 million.

The Ride for Refuge is not the only Christian organization riding to help refugees.  The South West Times reports that on October 3rd, parishioners from the First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Liberal, Kansas will be traveling 900+ miles to Texas to deliver goods and money to refugees there (though it does not appear they will covering the 900 miles by bike!).  The fund raiser was begun in 1979 by Feliberto Pereira, a Cuban refugee who wanted to help others in his predicament.  According to the South West Times, this will be the last year for the refugee ride, which ends at the Southwest Good Samaritan Ministries, a refugee center located near the Mexican border.

The fund raising by these groups (and other religious charities) recalls Matthew 25:  Jesus said, “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”  Then the righteous [people asked] him, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?”  Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” 

In an age of increasing anger and xenophobia, it’s nice to see people who take the gospel seriously and who walk the walk.  And pedal the bike.

Continue reading

Asylum for Nazis?

by Jason Dzubow

The Moscow Times reports on a mixed martial arts champion and neo-Nazi who fled Russia and is now seeking asylum in Norway.  Vyacheslav Datsik escaped from a psychiatric facility in St. Petersburg and made his way to Norway, where he was arrested on suspicion of violating the country’s law on gun ownership and having possible links to organized crime.  Mr. Datsik’s asylum case is pending, but apparently it is becoming more difficult for Russians to obtain asylum in Norway, and given his checkered history, Mr. Datsik might have a difficult time gaining asylum.

In the U.S., I know of two reported neo-Nazi asylum cases in the last couple years.  In July 2008, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle were convicted of publishing “race-hate” by the Leeds Crown Court in England.  After receiving bail, the two men fled the UK for Los Angeles.  On arrival at LAX, immigration officials took the two men–now dubbed the “heretical two”— into custody.  The men filed for political asylum in the United States. 

The Heretical Two

The heretical two believe that their government is unjustly curtailing their right to freedom of speech.  Indeed, many European governments—in particular Germany—have made neo-Nazi activities and Holocaust denial illegal.

Claims for asylum by European neo-Nazis raise some interesting questions.  For one, can a person receive asylum in the United States for hate speech that is illegal in his home country?  Such speech would be legal in the United States, but can be punished by jail time in Europe.  Arresting people for hate speech certainly satisfies the requirement under U.S. asylum law that a person be targeted “on account of” political opinion.  Whether or not the government action against the individual rises to the level of “persecution” might be a more difficult case to make.  But recently, an Immigration Judge granted asylum to some German home schoolers who faced “persecution” because they refused to send their children to public school (the DHS appeal of this decision is currently pending).  If home schoolers face persecution (i.e., jail) in Germany, then perhaps neo-Nazis in Europe face persecution as well. 

Whether European neo-Nazis should receive asylum also raises questions about the purpose of asylum.  Our asylum laws, to some extent, reflect our values.  We grant asylum to Chinese citizens who face coercive population control measures even though such measures are deemed necessary—even crucial—by the Chinese government.  Nevertheless, we have decided that such government intervention into private life is so unacceptable that it is worthy of an asylum grant.  Do we think that people arrested for political statements should be granted asylum?  Does the imprisonment of such people rise to the level of persecution? 

If these individuals can show that their treatment by their home government is persecution, it seems that they should be eligible for asylum.  Whether they qualify as a matter of discretion is another matter.

As for the heretical two, their applications for asylum were denied and they declined to appeal.  After removal to England, they were each convicted of crimes related to racial hatred.  Mr. Sheppard received four years and ten months imprisonment, and Mr. Whittle was sentenced to two years and four months. 

Continue reading

The Silence Between the Notes Makes the Music

by Jason Dzubow

I was never quite sure what that meant, but it somehow seems appropriate to preparing asylum cases.  There is a temptation when preparing a case to include everything the applicant brings you: school and work records, letters from witnesses, police documents, medical documents, news articles.  But sometimes in asylum, less is more, and the more asylum cases I do, the more I feel comfortable leaving things out. 

Zen and the art of asylum application.

For one thing, I’ve seen too many cases where the client included a piece of unnecessary evidence, only to have that piece of evidence create problems.  For example, I worked on an Ethiopian asylum case that was well supported with letters and other evidence.  The client also included a hospital receipt showing that she was treated for stomach illness shortly after her release from prison.  The document supported her assertion that she was sick while in prison, but we had other evidence for that, including letters from people who saw her after she was released.  DHS investigated the document and found that it was fraudulent.  Ultimately, the client was granted asylum, but not without a whole lot of difficulty and expense that could have been avoided if we left out the hospital receipt. 

The hard part, of course, is how to know what to leave out.  Generally, if I have a document that solidly supports one aspect of the applicant’s claim, I feel comfortable leaving out other documents that do the same thing.  For example, I am representing an Afghan asylum seeker who worked with a well known NATO General in Afghanistan.  We have photos of the two men together, a letter from the General, and letters from other people attesting to the relationship.  If my client’s claim is that the Taliban threatened to harm him because he was seen together with the NATO General, then it would be helpful to prove that my client and the General were actually together (I do not need to prove the substance of their meeting, only that they were together).  The photos alone are enough to prove that the two men met; the remaining evidence is extraneous and has the potential to create problems–maybe a letter is incorrectly dated or the government will suspect that the General’s letter is fraudulent and send it for a time-consuming investigation.  In this scenario, when I submit the additional evidence, I gain nothing for my client and we potentially create problems.  So why submit this additional evidence?

The REAL ID Act requires an asylum applicant to submit supporting evidence or explain the absence of that evidence, so I am not advocating not submitting pertinent evidence.  I merely suggest that an asylum applicant does not need to submit redundant evidence once he has submitted sufficient evidence to prove an aspect of his story.  Submitting the additional evidence may “bulk up” the asylum application, but it also creates the risk of an inconsistency–and inconsistencies can pop up where you’d least expect them.

I think this principle holds true for general country condition information as well.  I’ve worked on several appeals where the underlying case was litigated by someone who submitted copious evidence of country conditions.  Why?  If the New York Times has an article about a particular political rally, you don’t need an additional article from the BBC to prove that the rally occurred.  The second (or fifth) article is completely redundant and so it adds nothing to the case.  However, it does serve to burden the fact-finder.  And worse, it creates the risk of an inconsistency.

I guess the lesson for today is: Prove your case, but not too much.

Continue reading

“One Central Reason” and Withholding of Removal

by Jason Dzubow

In a decision issued last week, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that the “one central reason” standard for asylum also applied to withholding of removal pursuant to INA § 241(b)(3). See Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I&N Dec. 341 (BIA Sept. 14, 2010).

Under the REAL ID Act, an alien is eligible for asylum only if “one central reason” for the feared persecution is race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion. See INA § 208(b)(i)(B)(I).  Now the BIA has held that the same standard applies to claims for withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3).  The Board reasoned that “all indications are that Congress intended to apply the ‘one central reason’ standard uniformly to both asylum and withholding claims:”

Applying this standard to withholding claims has two distinct practical advantages. The first is that it will avoid the application of the different standards adopted by the courts of appeals in “mixed motive” cases….  The second is that the burden of proof standard would be consistent between asylum and withholding of removal claims.

What motivates a persecutor?

The BIA found that “Applying a different standard in ‘mixed-motive’ cases to asylum and withholding of removal would create inherent difficulties because it would require a bifurcated analysis on a single subissue in the overall case.”  “An application for asylum necessarily includes the similar but lesser form of relief of withholding of removal….  applying the same standard promotes consistency and predictability, which are important principles in immigration law.”

The Board concluded:

Considering the language and design of the statute, congressional intent to create a uniform standard, and the inherent difficulties in applying different burden of proof standards on the subissue of the persecutor’s motive, we conclude that an applicant for withholding of removal must demonstrate that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be “at least one central reason” for the claimed persecution.

With that, the Board dismissed the alien’s appeal.

While consistency is a laudable goal, the fact remains that in the REAL ID Act, Congress amended the standard for asylum and not the standard for withholding of removal.  I imagine that we have not heard the last of this issue.  A petition for review to the Ninth Circuit seems likely, and we will see how that court interprets the statute.

Continue reading

2 Comments

The Center for Immigration Studies Latest Comments on Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

David North recently posted a blog entry, the Uses and Abuses of the Asylum System, on the Center for Immigration Studies website.  Normally, I disagree (sometimes vehemently) with postings on the CIS website.  But this time, I’m pretty much in agreement with Mr. North.

In his posting, Mr. North describes the refugee system and the asylum system.  Apparently, he previously prepared a comparison between refugees and asylees, examining the use of public benefits by each group (he references his study, but I did not notice a link to it).  He found that asylees generally use less pubic benefits than refugees.  He posits that asylum seekers tend to be wealthier and better educated than refugees–asylum seekers make (and pay for) their own way to the United States; refugees are selected overseas from people in camps or otherwise outside their countries. 

His assessment certainly comports with my experience.  My clients these days are asylum seekers; many of them are educated people who are reasonably well off.  In the early 1990’s, I worked in refugee resettlement.  My clients then were a mixed bag–Jewish refugees from the former Soviet Union tended to be well educated, but poor.  Amerasians and other refugees from Indochina were generally less well educated, and many were indigent.   

Mr. North also notes that asylum seekers from some countries have filed meritless cases in an effort to delay their removal from the United States.  I agree that this is a problem, though it is not really anything new.  Indeed, the asylum system was reformed in 1996 to reduce the incentive to file meritless claims.  Before 1996, asylum seekers received a work permit shortly after they filed for asylum.  Now, they must wait 150 days before they can apply for a work permit.  Of course, some people still file meritless claims in order to delay their removal.  Unfortunately, Mr. North does not suggest what could be done about this.  If we offer asylum to people with a genuine fear of persecution, it is difficult to prevent others from taking advantage of our generosity. 

I do have one minor quibble with Mr. North’s posting.  He notes that during FY 2008-2010, asylum seekers from Iraq were the group most likely to receive political asylum in Immigration Court (only 13% of Iraqi cases were denied).  He writes:

The sad irony is that the U.S. government, after spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives to make life better in Iraq, has done so little good there, in the eyes of its own Immigration Judges, that when it comes to arguing that one is persecuted in one’s own country, those from Iraq are the ones most likely to win.

I don’t know if this is exactly correct.  By the time a case reaches the decision stage in court, it is usually at least one year old, and often two or three years old.  This means that any past persecution occurred probably two to five years earlier.  During that time, conditions were much worse in Iraq.  Mr. North may be correct–maybe IJs think we have not done much good in Iraq–but it is just as likely that the cases before them originated at a time when conditions in Iraq were less secure.  My guess is, we will see the grant rate for Iraqi cases dropping over the next few years (unless of course the country falls apart again). 

In any case, it is nice to agree with the Center for Immigration Studies for a change.

Continue reading

Venezuelan Accused of Embassy Bombings Seeks Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

A Venezuelan man accused in the 2003 bombing of Spanish and Colombian diplomatic missions in Venezuela has fled his country and is seeking asylum in the United States.  The Miami Herald reports that Raul Diaz escaped from prison while on a daytime furlough.  He traveled by boat to Trinidad and then flew to Miami. 

 Mr. Diaz denies involvement in the embassy bombings, which injured four people.   He claims that there were irregularities in his criminal proceedings and that he was detained in inhumane conditions.

Memorial to Victims of Cuban Flight 455

Since arriving in the U.S., Mr. Diaz has garnered support from the Venezuela Awareness Foundation, a human rights organization that opposes the Hugo Chavez regime.  He has also met with U.S. representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is supporting his bid for asylum and who issued a press release stating that Diaz’s case was an example of the human rights violations carried out by Chavez.

While there is good reason to oppose Hugo Chavez and his dictatorial tendencies, it seems premature to embrace Mr. Diaz as deserving asylum in our country.  He has been accused of a serious crime–planting bombs that injured four people, including the wife and young daughter of a security guard.  This reminds me of the bombing of Cuban flight 455 in 1976, a terrorist attack that killed 73 people.  At least two of the men responsible for the attack are now living freely in the U.S., supported by various politicians, including Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, who is originally from Cuba and who is strongly opposed to the Castro government.  I guess I do not understand the logic of supporting terrorists who kill innocent people, just because we oppose the governments of the countries they attack. 

Perhaps Mr. Diaz is innocent, as he claims, but perhaps not.  An Asylum Officer or an Immigration Judge needs to scrutinize the case to determine whether he is eligible for asylum or whether he is barred as a terrorist.

Continue reading