Should the U.S. Send Asylum Seekers to Mexico?

by Jason Dzubow

The government of Australia recently entered into an agreement with Malaysia whereby the next 800 asylum seekers who arrive illegally by boat in Australia will be sent to Malaysia where their asylum cases will be processed.  The deal still needs to have some kinks ironed out, but it seems that if an asylum case is approved, the asylee would join the (long) queue of registered refugees waiting for resettlement to Australia or elsewhere.  While the asylum seekers’ cases are pending, they will have permission to work or study in Malaysia, and they will have access to healthcare (at least theoretically: the Malaysian government does not have a great reputation for its treatment of refugees).  In exchange for taking the asylum seekers, Australia will accept 4,000 refugees–i.e., people who have already been determined to qualify for refugee status–from Malaysia, and Australia will pay for the plan.  The hope is that by sending asylum seekers to Malaysia and putting them at the back of the resettlement line, the new plan will eliminate the incentive for people to come illegally to Australia.

Malaysian Tourism Minister laments the new plan: "Not even refugees want to come here!"

The United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights has questioned the legality of this arrangement.  But Australia is pressing ahead with the plan, and has already identified the first boatload of asylum seekers who will be sent to Malaysia.  The Australian Prime Minister sees this plan as a way to reduce the lucrative alien smuggling business and protect refugees:

“I made it very clear that what I wanted to do was to break the back of the people smuggling model, to take away from them the very product that they sell, to stop people risking their lives at sea and to stop people profiting from human misery,” Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard said at a news conference. “I wanted to see us do something to end the profitability of people smuggling.”

My question is, could the U.S. adopt such a model to discourage asylum seekers who enter the U.S. at our Southern border?  Such people often make a long and dangerous journey from their country to ours.  They pass through many countries before entering the United States illegally and applying for asylum.  Thus, it seems these asylum seekers are subject to a “push” (a reason to leave their home countries) and a “pull” (a reason to come to the U.S. rather than another country).  What if we eliminated the “pull” by sending such people to a third country to process their cases?  Some thoughts:

For a start, we would need a country willing to accept our asylum seekers.  The most obvious choice is Mexico.  Mexico is trying to comply with international refugee law, and most asylum seekers entering the U.S. illegally have to pass through Mexico to get here.  The asylum seekers from China and Africa who pay thousands of dollars to smugglers, are paying to come to the U.S., not to Mexico.  And–no offense to Mexico–I don’t think asylum seekers would pay these exorbitant sums if their journeys ended in Mexico.  So if we sent our asylum seekers to Mexico, it would reduce the “pull” factor and might discourage large numbers of people from trying to come here illegally (and risking their lives in the process).

On the other hand, there are good reasons why we should not adopt Australia’s model.  A letter from Human Rights Watch to the Prime Minister of Australia makes some convincing arguments against “outsourcing” asylum seekers.  First, there are real questions about whether the receiving country will treat asylum seekers in accordance with Australia’s (or our) human rights obligations.  Second, forcibly transferring asylum seekers may violate treaty commitments.  The HRW letter continues:

We are also concerned that this deal is premised on the dangerous notion that obligations of states party to the Refugee Convention can be transferred to states with no such convention obligations.  Finally, we also fear that this deal tries to subvert the principles underlying refugee resettlement by transforming resettlement from a tool of international protection into a mechanism of migration-control.

To these reasons, I would add that transferring asylum seekers sets a bad precedent for how other countries will treat asylum seekers.  The United States sets the standard for many areas of international law and policy.  If we shirk our commitment to asylum seekers, other countries will follow suit.  Finally, we often forget how much asylum seekers contribute to our country.  Check out this list of famous refugees for some well-known examples of refugees who have contributed greatly to their host countries.

We will see how the Australian experiment proceeds.  It will be relatively easy to determine whether the plan reduces the number of illegal migrants, but it will be difficult to measure how the plan impacts human rights.  We need to look at both sides of the equation before we consider such an approach for our country.

Continue reading

3 Comments

Pirates Brought to the U.S. for Prosecution Might Seek Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

During the first half of 2011, piracy attacks in the Indian Ocean increased by 36%.  But prosecution of captured pirates remains relatively rare.  In fact, four-fifths of captured pirates are released without further ado.  

A recent incident is proving an exception to the rule.  A group of Somali pirates was captured last February after they murdered four American on a sailboat off the coast of East Africa.  The men were transported to Virginia (which apparently has a long history of prosecuting pirates).  Eleven plead guilty and three others will be indicted on various charges later this month.  They could face the death penalty.     

The Virginia example notwithstanding, why are so few pirates being prosecuted?  One reason may be logistics.  It’s not easy to transport pirates from the high seas near African to a courtroom in the West (or even to Kenya, where some pirates are tried based on an international agreement).  Another reason might be a fear that the pirates would claim asylum once they reached a Western country.  A recent law review article by Yvonne M. Dutton explores this very question.

In her article, Pirates and Impunity: Is the Threat of Asylum Claims a Reason to Allow Pirates to Escape Justice, Professor Dutton argues that there is little danger of pirates gaining asylum (or Withholding of Removal  or relief under the UN Convention Against Torture).  Any danger of a pirate claiming asylum, she writes, is offset by the need to bring the pirates to justice.

Yaar! I'll be claimin' political asylum.

Professor Dutton writes that most Somali pirates would not qualify for asylum–they do not fear persecution in their country based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.  She also writes that many pirate-asylum seekers would automatically be disqualified from asylum due to their criminal histories.  She believes that pirates would generally not qualify for relief under the Torture Convention because they could not demonstrate a likelihood of torture if they return to their home country.  And, even if a pirate-asylum seeker demonstrates that he faces torture, the U.S. could seek diplomatic assurances that he would not be tortured if returned home.  Also, pirates could possibly be removed to a safe third country.  Finally, Professor Dutton concludes that even if some pirates do seek asylum, that is a reasonable price to pay for assuring that pirates are prosecuted: “Captured pirates should not be able to get away with murder simply because developed nations do not wish to deal with a relatively few additional asylum claims.”

While I generally agree with her conclusions, I can’t help but think that Professor Dutton is underestimating the creativity of Somali asylum seekers (and their attorneys).  There are plenty of former gang members from Central America who seek–and sometimes obtain–asylum, Withholding of Removal or Torture Convention relief.  In some ways, their cases are not very different from the Somali pirates (though one key difference is that the pirates are being transported to the U.S. for prosecution, while the former gang members usually make their own way here).

I also disagree with Professor Dutton’s idea that pirates could be returned to Somalia after receiving diplomatic assurances that they will not be tortured.  To the extent that Somalia has a government, I doubt it can be trusted with any diplomatic assurances. 

Finally, I have real doubts that a third country would be willing to accept the pirates who we cannot return home. 

These points are all pretty minor.  Very few Somali pirates would qualify for asylum or any other relief if they are brought to the U.S. for trial.  And–given the scope of the problem–it seems well worth the risk to end the culture of impunity that allows piracy to flourish off the African coast.  

Continue reading

2 Comments

My Guest Blog Posting in the New York Times

by Jason Dzubow

Earlier this week, the New York Times had an article about fraud and asylum, Immigrants May Be Fed False Stories to Bolster Asylum Pleas.  The article was inspired by revelations about the maid who accused former-IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault.  It turned out that the maid was an asylee, who likely gained asylum by fabricating a claim of past persecution. 

The NY Times asked several professionals in the field–including yours truly–to contribute their thoughts about how the asylum system can be improved.  Our comments appeared in a forum called Room for Debate.  I suggested that the government make a greater effort to prosecute lawyers and other people who help immigrants create fraudulent cases.  Not only is this more efficient than going after individual asylum seekers, but it ultimately would protect immigrants by reducing the number of fraudsters involved in the business.  Here are my comments (slightly modified since my essay in the Times was limited to 300 words and here I can use as many words as I want):  

Go After the Lawyers

There is an old adage in criminal law: Better that 10 guilty people go free than convict one innocent person. Our asylum law is based on the opposite philosophy: It is better to allow some asylum seekers to enter the United States fraudulently, than return one person to a country where he faces persecution or death. For this reason, the burden of proof for asylum is relatively low (as opposed to criminal law, where the burden for a conviction–beyond a reasonable doubt–is quite high). 

People reading and discussing my NY Times article.

This low burden, combined with the very valuable benefit of asylum, creates an incentive for people to make fraudulent claims. The trick is to reduce fraud without preventing legitimate asylum seekers from gaining protection.

It seems to me there are three main possibilities.

One option is to devote more resources to individual cases. If asylum officers, immigration judges and government attorneys could spend more time on each case, they would probably discover more instances of fraud. But attacking fraud on a case-by-case basis seems inefficient and, given limited resources, unlikely to significantly reduce the number of fraudulent claims.

Another option is to raise the burden of proof required to obtain asylum. The problem, of course, is that such a move would exclude legitimate asylum seekers, and would degrade the high moral standard our nation set when we created our asylum system.

A final — and to me, the most effective — option is to identify attorneys and others who prepare claims deemed suspicious. Investigating and, where appropriate, prosecuting these people can dramatically reduce fraud, since each such person produces and/or facilitates large numbers of false claims. A few high-profile prosecutions would also help deter others who might engage in such practices.

I have represented many asylum seekers, including journalists, human rights workers, diplomats, rape victims, and survivors of genocide. Such people have legitimate claims and would face persecution or worse if they returned home. In responding to fraud, we should remember our ethical responsibility to protect such people.

Continue reading

2 Comments

CRS Report: Country Conditions Are the Driving Force Behind Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

A recent report from the Congressional Research Service concludes that “data analysis of six selected countries (the PRC, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, and Mexico) suggests that conditions in the source countries are likely the driving force behind asylum seekers.”  These six countries represent the majority of asylum seekers coming to the U.S., and the new report is significant for several reasons.

CRS employs some of the most logical people on Capitol Hill.

First, critics of the asylum system claim that it is a backdoor for economic migrants and that many asylum cases are fraudulent.  While fraud is a problem and economic conditions certainly affect the flow of migrants (including asylum seekers), the CRS report lends support to pro-asylum types (such as myself), who believe that most asylum seekers are fleeing persecution and repression in their homelands.

Second, since CRS is the organization tasked with supporting “the Members, committees, and leaders of the House and Senate at all stages of the legislative process,” its policy papers are influential in shaping legislation.  Maybe it is naive to believe that ideologues in Congress will consider the new report when making policy, but at least those in the pro-asylum camp will have some new data to help make their arguments.

Finally, there are a couple of asylum-related issues pending in the current Congress.  One is the Refugee Protection Act, which offers some new protections to asylum seekers.  The CRS report mentions the RFA, and seems to have been written with that bill in mind.  The RFA has been floating around the Senate for over a year, and no progress seems forthcoming.  However, Zoe Lofgren–a great advocate for protecting immigrants–introduced a companion bill in the House last month.  So perhaps we will see some action on this front.     

The other piece of asylum-related news in Congress is Senator Rand Paul’s hearing on terrorism and asylum.  Senator Paul called for hearings after two Iraqi refugees were arrested on terrorism charges (I wrote about this here).   The hearing is scheduled for July 13, 2011.  The CRS report is relevant to this hearing as well.  Although there are legitimate concerns related to national security and asylum, the instances of asylum seekers or refugees committing (or being accused of) terrorist acts are extremely rare.  The report shows that many asylum seekers are genuine refugees who face persecution in their home countries.  The Senate should keep this in mind when balancing national security with our humanitarian and moral responsibilities.

Continue reading

1 Comment

UK Scraps DNA Testing for Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

A short-lived attempt by Great Britain to determine the nationality of asylum seekers was unceremoniously dumped after it became clear that the testing was of no scientific value. 

In 2009, the Brits started a (supposedly) voluntary program to test the DNA of asylum seekers from certain African countries.  The idea was to reduce fraudulent applications where the asylum seeker claimed to be from a country other than his own (for example, a Kenyan might claim to be from Somalia in order to increase the likelihood that he would receive asylum).  From the beginning, scientists such as University of Leicester’s Alec Jeffreys expressed serious doubts about whether DNA could really determine a person’s country of origin.  Said Mr. Jeffreys:

The [British] Borders Agency is clearly making huge and unwarranted assumptions about population structure in Africa; the extensive research needed to determine population structure and the ability or otherwise of DNA to pinpoint ethnic origin in this region simply has not been done. Even if it did work (which I doubt), assigning a person to a population does not establish nationality – people move! The whole proposal is naive and scientifically flawed.

Now it seems the government has ended the program and even shelved its plans to complete an internal review of the program’s efficacy. 

A second aspect of the program–isotope analysis–has also been canned.  Under this program, the government would analyze hair and nail samples to determine what chemical isotopes they contained.  The government could then (supposedly) determine where the person had recently been.  So for example, if a Somali woman had been living in Italy for the last five years, and then traveled to England to claim asylum, the government could use isotope analysis to show that the woman had not recently been to Somalia.  It is unclear how accurate this analysis is, or how many asylum seekers lie about their country of origin. 

While isotope analysis might provide limited assistance in this regard, it seems to me an easier and cheaper approach is to determine whether the person is fluent in a language from the claimed country of origin.  Of course, like isotopes and DNA, language fluency does not necessarily conform to national borders, but it is probably about as reliable–and much less expensive.

So what, then, is the lesson for us on this side of the Atlantic?  I have not heard about proposals here to use DNA testing or isotope analysis.  Given the lack of success in Great Britain, I imagine that we will not be adopting these methods anytime soon.

Continue reading

Asylum for Mexican HR Activist Spotlights Problems in Mexico and the US

by Jason Dzubow
Last week, the U.S. government granted asylum to Cipriana Jurado, a Mexican human rights activist who feared persecution by the Mexican army.  According to the Associated Press, Ms. Jurado’s “friend and long-time human rights colleague Josefina Reyes was gunned down in Juarez in January.”  Like Ms. Jurado, Ms. Reyes had campaigned against government and gang violence.  Not only was Ms. Reyes murdered–killed by unidentified gunmen–several members of her family were abducted.  Given the danger, it is not surprising that Ms. Jurado received asylum (not to minimize this accomplishment–only about 2% of asylum cases from Mexico are granted).  Ms. Jurado’s case, I think, highlights problems in the United States and Mexico caused by the escalating violence across our border. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
To paraphrase Mr. Franklin: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cocaine."
First in Mexico: The blatant attacks against human rights workers points to a general disregard for the rule of law.  Has the army become just another gang in the on-going turf war?  Tens of thousands of people have died as a result of drug and gang violence.  The U.S. certainly bears some of the blame, since we are the main consumers of the drugs passing through Mexico and we are the source of most of the guns used in the violence across our Southern border.  Mexico needs to get control of the situation and we need to help.  We need to do more to prevent weapons from crossing the border.  Also, it wouldn’t hurt to try something new in the “war on drugs.”  Perhaps legalizing certain drugs would help reduce the involvement of criminal gangs, and consequently reduce violence.  The website Law Enforcement Against Prohibition has some good information on the potential benefits of legalizing some controlled substances.
                                                                                                              
As for the U.S., if Northern Mexico becomes a failed state, the implications for us are pretty severe.  One fear is that increasing numbers of people will seek asylum in the United States.  The low grant rate for Mexican cases might change if–as in Ms. Jurado’s case–the persecutor is the Mexican government (as opposed to criminal gangs, who currently do most of the persecuting across the border).  This fear may be mitigated by the fact that–unlike Ms. Jurado–most people persecuted by the Mexican government will likely be involved in criminal activities and thus ineligible for asylum (though still eligible for relief under the UN Convention Against Torture). 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
It seems to me that a border enforcement-only policy would betray our ideals of protecting bona fide refugees like Ms. Jurado.  We can’t live up to our ideals simply by trying to keep people out who are fleeing persecution.  We need to work more on the prevention side of the equation.  If we succeed, we can help reduce the flow of refugees and improve the situation for our Southern neighbor. 

Continue reading

Afghan Asylum Seekers in Limbo

by Jason Dzubow
"I'm still waiting for a decision in my asylum case."

As conditions in Afghanistan have deteriorated, I find myself representing increasing numbers of Afghan asylum seekers. Many are young men who have worked with the United States military. Others are journalists or other media types who have appeared on television in Afghanistan. Still others worked for human rights groups and women’s rights groups.

One thing that my clients have in common is that they are all trying to bring about peaceful, democratic changes to their country.  As a result of their activities, my clients faced threats from the Taliban.  A number of my clients were attacked, and some had close relatives killed by the Taliban.  Because the Afghan government cannot (and in some cases will not) protect them, my clients are seeking asylum in the U.S.

Another thing my Afghan clients have in common is that their cases are being held up for “security” checks.  I’ll explain below why I put the word security in quotation marks.

But first, a bit of background: The majority of aliens who file affirmative asylum cases receive a decision two weeks after their interview.  Apparently, cases with Afghan asylum seekers are reviewed by headquarters.  This takes a lot longer than two weeks.  So far this year, I have been to 11 asylum interviews: five from Afghanistan, six from other countries (five from Ethiopia and one from Iran).  All five of the Afghan cases are still pending.  Of the other six, we have decisions in all cases except one (the Iranian case).  In my longest-pending Afghan asylum case, the applicant was interviewed more than seven months ago; we are still waiting for a decision.

According to an Asylum Officer I spoke to, the reason for the delay has to do with “security.”  Obviously, there are legitimate concerns about people coming from Afghanistan and seeking asylum in the U.S.  But there are several reasons why I am skeptical about these “security” checks.  For one, many of my Afghan clients worked closely with the U.S. military, and they have letters, certificates, and photos (often with high-ranking military and civilian officials, including some who were photographed with President Bush) to prove it.  Such individuals have already been subject to some pretty serious scrutiny, so it is not clear what additional checks are necessary.  Second, all the Afghan asylum seekers were screened for security issues in Afghanistan before they received their U.S. visas.  Since nothing suspicious was found in Afghanistan, it seems unlikely (at best) that anything would turn up during an additional security background check in the United States.  Finally, my clients are currently in the United States.  If they are dangerous, they should not be walking freely around our country for six months (or more) while USCIS checks to see whether they pose a security risk.  If USCIS believed that a particular asylum seeker presented a threat, I image (and I hope) that they would detain the person immediately.

A number of my clients have family members in Afghanistan who are hoping to join their relative in the United States if asylum is approved.  Some of these people are living in precarious circumstances and face threats from the Taliban.  It is frustrating and frightening for my clients and their family members when they have no idea how long until they will receive a decision.  It is not fair to keep people waiting in limbo.  I hope that USCIS will consider improving the processing time for Afghan cases.  If they cannot do that, I hope they will at least provide an estimate to the asylum seekers about how long a decision will take.  Treating asylum seekers with respect and dignity means processing cases as quickly as possible and being as open about the waiting time as circumstances allow.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Battle Hymn of the Tiger Lawyer

by Jason Dzubow

In her memoir, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, law professor Amy Chua compares the strict “Chinese” parenting style with the more permissive parenting style popular in the West.  The book (or at least the out-of-context ideas in the book) shook the parenting word: Are Western parents focused so much on building their children’s self esteem that they’re raising self-indulgent, spoiled kids?  Are traditional Chinese parents raising children who will be smarter and more successful than their peers in the West?

Tiger Lawyers win more cases.

I am not sure which parenting style works better, but in the context of immigration law, it makes sense that the “Chinese” style will result in better outcomes for our clients. 

It might seem like a no brainer to treat our clients strictly–if we need a document in time to meet a deadline, the client better get us that document on time.  The problem is, immigration lawyers, and more particularly asylum lawyers, are generally big softies.  We may talk tough, but our sympathies are with the little guy.  For the most part, we are nice people trying to help out those in need.  We’re not really the type to crack the whip.    

I can think of plenty of occasions where clients brought me documents on deadline day, after I finished preparing their cases.  I may have grumbled (a lot), but I dutifully pulled apart the documents, re-did the index of exhibits, and submitted a complete package with the new evidence.  Other times, I receive documents after the deadline.  I submit them late and make some excuse to the judge, often times taking the blame myself.  A Tiger Lawyer would not do these things.  He would tell the client that it was too late, and let the chips fall where they may–if the client loses her case, she has only herself to blame.

Of course, clients don’t care much about deadlines or documents; they just want to win their cases.  If lawyers didn’t submit the documents late or take the blame for our clients’ failures, we would lose more cases.  Perhaps it would be better if our clients suffered the consequences of their shortcomings.  But I suspect a lawyer who follows that approach won’t be in business for very long.   

To be successful, we have to be tough on our clients so that they gather the evidence and do what is needed to win their cases.  But in the end, we have to put our clients’ interests first, and when they fail to do their part, we have to make up for it.  So maybe the best approach is to be a nice guy in a Tiger Lawyer’s clothing.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Ecuador Cracks Down on Alien Smuggling to the U.S.

by Jason Dzubow

Not long ago, the Washington Post reported on one of my clients from Eritrea, who was smuggled through a dozen countries before entering the U.S. and gaining asylum.  The article states that my client’s “epic trip underscores the challenge of protecting U.S. borders in the face of agile networks of smugglers, corrupt officials who arrange travel documents and desperate immigrants willing to pay thousands of dollars for the journey.”  These networks worry U.S. officials:

“While the majority of aliens smuggled into the U.S. probably do not pose a risk to national security, the problem is terrorists could exploit these smuggling travel networks,” said James C. Spero, deputy assistant director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which enforces immigration laws. “It is a major concern for us.”

Recently, there seems to have been some progress in combating the smuggling networks.  The Ecuadoran newspaper El Universo reports that on March 10, a joint Ecuadoran and Columbian raid captured Yaee Dawit Tadese, a/k/a Jack Flora, an Eritrean smuggler, and 66 other individuals from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.  Mr. Tadese managed a network that trafficked migrants from Africa to the United States, using two routes running through either Ecuador or Venezuela.  According to the website InSightCrime.org, Mr. Tadese was deported to the U.S. on March 12, where he faces terrorism, and drug and human trafficking charges (the article also reports on a rumor that Mr. Tadese is Osama bin Laden’s cousin, but that seems a bit far fetched).

Yaee Dawit Tadese: Osama bin Laden's long lost cousin?

It remains to be seen how much these arrests will impact the flow of illegal migrants to the U.S., but I imagine it will have an effect–at least for a while.

In related news, a change in the visa requirements in Ecuador might also reduce the number of migrants passing through that country en route to the United States.  In 2008, Ecuador eliminated visa requirements for most countries.  Since that time, according to InSightCrime.org, the country has “seen the growth of Colombian, Russian, and Chinese organized crime groups operating within its borders.”  Ecuador’s “lax visa policies may have also increased the smuggling of Asian and African migrants from the Andean nation to the U.S.”

Late last year, “Ecuador created visa requirements for nine countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan and Somalia.”  This change may also reduce the number of migrants passing through Ecuador on their way to the U.S. 

Given that it takes several months for people to travel from Ecuador through Central America and Mexico to the U.S., I suspect we will begin to see the effects of Mr. Tadese’s arrest and the new visa requirements in the near future.  Will these developments reduce the number of people arriving illegally at the U.S.-Mexican border, or will they simply cause the migrants to seek out alternative routes?  We will know soon enough.

Continue reading

The BIA on Firm Resettlement

by Jason Dzubow

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) an alien who is “firmly resettled” in a third country is ineligible for asylum in the United States. See INA § 208(b)(2)(A)(vi); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.15.

If Angelina Jolie shows up, it probably means you are not firmly resettled.

It’s been more than 20 years since the BIA issued an opinion on firm resettlement, and during that period, the various federal circuit courts have weighed in, creating a patchwork of inconsistent law across the U.S.  In a new decision, Matter of A-G-G-, 25 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA May 12, 2011), the Board has issued important guidance concerning firm resettlement.

The BIA held that the Department of Homeland Security has the initial burden to make a prima facie showing of an offer of firm resettlement by presenting direct evidence of an alien’s ability to stay indefinitely in a third country.  When direct evidence is unavailable, indirect evidence may be used if it has a sufficient level of clarity and force to establish that the alien is able to permanently reside in the country.  An asylum applicant can rebut this evidence by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that such an offer has not been made or that the applicant’s circumstances would render him or her ineligible for such an offer of permanent residence.

The failure to apply for permanent residence where it is available to an alien does not rebut evidence of firm resettlement.  Thus, evidence that permanent resident status is available to the alien under the law of the third country may be sufficient to make a prima facie showing of an offer of firm resettlement, and a determination that the alien is firmly resettled is not contingent on whether the alien applies for permanent status in the third country.

It makes sense that the initial burden of proving firm resettlement is on the DHS–in most cases, an alien subject to the firm resettlement bar will have lived for a time in a third country.  In this case, the alien, A-G-G-, was a Mauritanian national who lived in Senegal for eight years.  He married a Senegalese citizen.  The fact that the alien resided in Senegal alerted DHS to the possibility of a firm resettlement bar, and they submitted evidence that A-G-G- could live permanently in Senegal.  A-G-G- then had an opportunity to rebut that evidence.  The fact that he chose not to apply for permanent status in Senegal was not sufficient–in and of itself–to avoid a permanent resettlement bar.  However, if there was some reason that A-G-G- could not live in Senegal, he could have presented that evidence and perhaps avoided the bar.

Matter of A-G-G- seems to strike a fair balance between protecting an asylum seeker’s ability to obtain asylum and preserving the government’s interest in barring people who have permanent residency elsewhere.



Continue reading

Doctors, Detention, and Dual Loyalty

by Jason Dzubow

A recent report by Physicians for Human Rights (“PHR”) articulates the difficult dilemma faced by physicians who serve detained immigrants.  Such physicians have a “dual loyalty” problem:

Health professionals working in detention facilities run directly under DHS oversight, report to the federal agency charged with managing health care for detainees, the ICE Health Service Corps (HSC).  Like ICE, HSC is a division of DHS, and therefore, has objectives that tend to focus on deportation and security, rather than on providing comprehensive health care to immigrants in detention.  Review of the HSC mission statement clearly demonstrates that its mandate is prone to conflict with health professionals’ obligation to provide their patients with the best possible care.  The HSC website proudly proclaims: “We protect America by providing health care and public health services in support of immigration law enforcement.”

Perhaps Janus, not Asclepius, is an appropriate patron deity for DHS Doctors.

A doctor’s first loyalty should be to her patient.  However, there are many examples of third parties infringing on the doctor-patient relationship: insurance companies and hospital administrators being two of the most common.  In the case of detained immigrants, a doctor’s loyalty to her patient may be compromised by her loyalty to her employer–in this case, the Department of Homeland Security.  The PHR report points out that this should not happen:

While the term “dual loyalty” may imply equivalence between a medical professional’s loyalty to the patient and loyalty to third party interests [such as DHS], no such equivalence exists.  Ethically, with very rare and well-circumscribed exceptions, a health professional is obligated to act in the interest of the patient above all other concerns.

Great in theory, but not always easy to implement in reality.  The report offers several recommendations, including the following:

  • Require that health care professionals working in detention centers report to health organizations, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, so that they may maintain clinical independence.  They should not report to the Department of Homeland Security or to for-profit private contractors.
  • Create an independent oversight organization to monitor provision of health care in all facilities that house immigration detainees.
  • Create an ombudsman office to which detainees may easily report grievances regarding access to medical care.
  • Make the Performance Based National Detentions Standards (PBNDS) legally enforceable in all facilities that house immigration detainees.  Failure to adhere should result in contract cancellation.

DHS detains about 400,000 people each year.  The recommendations in the PHR report would help to improve medical care for these people and would also help to mitigate the “dual loyalty” problem faced by physicians in the system.  Further, PHR’s recommendations do not seem particularly costly.  Indeed, the primary recommendation–that physicians working with detained immigrants report to HHS instead of DHS–should cost next to nothing.  The recommendations are worthy of consideration by DHS.

Continue reading

Cuban “Asylum Seeker” to Play for Major League Baseball

by Jason Dzubow
Leonys Martin: A uniform this ugly might form the basis for an asylum claim.

It looks like the Texas Rangers’ newest teammate will be Cuban defector Leonys Martin, a 23-year old centerfielder who formerly played for the Cuban National Team.  Mr. Martin defected while his team was in Taiwan playing in the FISU World University Championships.  How he made his way to the U.S. is not clear. 

According to the Rangers’ website, Mr. Martin is currently training in Arizona.  He will receive a $15 million signing bonus and will likely begin his pro career on a Double-A team, though he is expected to move to the majors by year’s end.  According to the Dallas Morning News, Mr. Martin’s immigration status caused a bit of delay when it came time for the Rangers to sign him:

Because of the complications of dealing with a player seeking political asylum, the signing has been held up while the sides await proper approval from the U.S. Department of State.

My guess is that Mr. Martin is not an asylum seeker, but rather (like many Cubans) he is a beneficiary of the Cuban Adjustment Act, a law that basically allows Cubans in the United States to obtain their lawful permanent residency after one year in our country.  Since Mr. Martin has been here for less than one year, the problem with signing him may be because he has not yet adjusted status under the Act. 

I’ve never been a huge fan of the Cuban Adjustment Act.  It seems unfair to me to allow Cubans this humanitarian benefit when we deny the benefit to people who come from more dangerous places (like Haiti, for example).  Although many Cubans face persecution in their homeland, I see no reason why they should not file for asylum like everyone else. 

On the other hand, our country has been greatly enriched by Cubans like Mr. Martin coming to our shores.  It’s just too bad that he’s not playing for the Phillies.

Continue reading

Do Women Face Discrimination in the Asylum System?

by Jason Dzubow

A recent posting on the blog Women and Foreign Policy by Carol Bohmer and Amy Shuman argues that “cultural, social and political attitudes and expectations can affect how a woman’s claim for asylum is evaluated by the authorities” and that such claims are treated “differently” and “less well” by those asylum authorities:

Most of the ways that the political asylum treats women differently are not articulated in policy but rather are implicit in the hearing processes, especially notable in explanations for denials of asylum.  In our work, we have categorized these as 1) how credibility is tied to gendered practices in the asylum hearings themselves, especially expectations of women’s demeanor; 2) gendered expectations about the content of women’s accounts of the violence and persecution they have experienced; 3) more general discrimination against women applicants, who are not taken seriously or whose legitimacy depends on additional requirements; and 4) evaluation of women’s political action is sometimes regarded as either not political enough or as belonging to such a general category that granting political asylum would “open the floodgates” to too many individuals.

My initial reaction to the claim that women and men are treated differently by Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges is one of skepticism.  For one thing, a good proportion of IJs, DHS Trial Attorneys, and Asylum Officers are women.  Not that one woman cannot discriminate against another, but we’re not talking about Phyllis Schlafly here–most of the women working in the system are very progressive on women’s issues.  Second, at least in my experience, the people involved in the system strive to apply the law equally and objectively, and tend to be cognizant of issues affecting women and girls.  Finally, in some ways, women are treated better by “the system” in that certain categories of relief exist specifically to protect women (female genital mutilation as persecution); other categories are used more frequently by women than by men (domestic violence, forced marriage, and human trafficking as persecution).

Future asylum adjudicators?

On the other hand, of the 40 or 45 asylum seekers I represented in 2010 and 2011, I lost five cases: four of them were women and the fifth was a gay man.  I had not really thought about this before, but it is surprising that 80% of the denied cases involved female asylum seekers.  I am still not convinced that gender played a role in these defeats, but I suppose my mini cohort provides some anecdotal support for Ms. Bohmer and Ms. Shuman’s thesis.  

With regard to the legal grounds for claiming asylum, Ms. Bohmer and Ms. Shuman make an important point:

When asylum officials reject a case, they are not necessarily saying that someone didn’t suffer a trauma….  Instead, when, for example, they deny a case about rape or domestic violence because the rape or violence was not political and/or because the woman was not persecuted as a member of a targeted social group, they are saying that the catastrophe, the trauma, the violence was part of another realm, crime, ordinary everyday crime, rather than political persecution.  Women, as people seen to occupy ordinary, domestic life, rather than political (public) life, are more likely to be the victims of crime.

This seems to me an important and often overlooked point–asylum was created to provide protection to people in the public sphere.  Such people tend to be men (though this is slowly changing).  Asylum was not designed to protect people who face persecution in the private sphere.  The recent efforts to expand the definition of asylum to include victims of FGM, domestic violence, forced marriage, and human trafficking are aimed at broadening the definition of asylum to include persecution that occurs in the private realm.  These efforts have generally involved litigation, not legislation.  It seems too bad that international legislative bodies and the U.S. Congress have not done more to protect people (women) who face these types of non-public persecution.  Perhaps the study by Ms. Bohmer and Ms. Shuman will help move the law in a direction that is more protective of female asylum seekers.

Continue reading

Asylum for Albinos

by Jason Dzubow

In some parts of Africa, Albinism can be a death sentence.  A Canadian organization that advocates for people with Albinism (“PWA”), Under the Same Sun, reports on the dire situation of Albinos in Tanzania:

[The sale of Albino body parts is] driven by the belief (in some areas of the country) that the body parts of PWA possess magical powers capable of bringing riches if used in potions produced by local witchdoctors. Between 2007 & the present, official reports indicate that 68 PWA have been brutally attacked and their body parts hacked off and sold to witchdoctors. Of the 68 attacks, 59 were murders and 9 are mutilated survivors. Leaders in the albinism community believe the actual number of attacks & deaths are closer to 100 or more. Reports also indicate that albino body parts are being exported outside of Tanzania. In one instance, a Tanzanian trader was caught travelling to the Democratic Republic of the Congo with the head of an infant with albinism in his possession. He told police that a businessman there was going to pay him for the head according to its weight.

The problem exists to varying degrees in different countries throughout sub-Saharan Africa.  Earlier this month, an Albino man from Nigeria received Withholding of Removal from an Immigration Court in Florida. 

Under the Same Sun co-founder Peter Ash in Tanzania with a friend
Franklin Ibeabuchi came to the United States when he was 10 years old.  He grew up in Jacksonville, married, and is raising three children.  In 2003, he was arrested for assault.  The charges were dropped, but he was placed into removal proceedings.  With the help of the Florida Coastal School of Law’s immigration clinic, he applied for political asylum based on his fear of being persecuted for Albinism.  It is unclear why he received Withholding of Removal instead of asylum (asylum is the better form of relief); perhaps because he failed to file for asylum within one year of his arrival in the U.S.  In any case, this seems like an important victory, and may be the first case of an Albino person demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution based on the particular social group of PWA. 

As an aside, the issue of Albino people seeking asylum has recently gotten some popular attention.  Earlier this year, an NBC show called Harry’s Law, which stars Kathy Bates as a “misfit lawyer,” featured a story about four young people with Albinism seeking asylum from Tanzania.  I must admit that I’ve never seen the show (I am still afraid of Kathy Bates thanks to her role in the movie Misery), but it looks like Matlock with a social conscience.  Anyway, if you are interested, you can learn more about the episode here (and by the way, the immigration trial seems completely unrealistic – the Judge finds that the case is a toss-up, so he will rule based on the current national consensus on immigration – maybe you can guess how it turns out).

Fortunately for Mr. Ibeabuchi, he will be able to remain safely in the United States with his family, and congratulations to the Florida Coastal School of Law on their important win.

Continue reading

17 Comments

Help Save Detroit’s Freedom House

by Jason Dzubow
They may take our lives, but they will never take our Freedom (House)!

People seeking asylum in the United States often wait many months for their cases to be adjudicated.  They usually have limited resources or connections in the U.S., many do not speak English, and they often have trouble finding work, even if they are lucky enough to obtain a work permit.  One organization that has been helping asylum seekers for almost 30 years is Freedom House in Detroit.  Now, the Detroit Metro Times reports that Freedom House is facing a severe financial crisis that could cause it to shut its doors:

[Freedom House] unexpectedly lost a major grant, and Deborah Drennan, the executive director, is worried they may have to close. “I’ve laid off six of my eight staff members, and both myself and the other two are working without a paycheck,” Drennan told [the Metro Times] last weekend.  “As you know, sending people away from Freedom House is in many cases a death sentence. I can’t let this happen,” she said.

If Freedom House did close, it would be a mini-global tragedy. People come here, somehow, from all over the world. Rwanda, Cameroon, Libya, Russia. When they arrive at this century-old, redbrick house (a former convent)… they are often a malnourished, dehydrated mess. Most have been tortured, physically and psychologically; many have been raped

Freedom House provides them with shelter, food, social and legal service, job placement, ESL, and safety.  The comprehensive nature of its services makes Freedom House unique.  Freedom House can accommodate 35 people at a time, but because they do not turn anyone away, they are often above capacity.  Over the last three decades, the organization has helped hundreds–maybe thousands–of asylum seekers establish new lives in the United States. 

Given the current financial crisis, the future of Freedom House seems uncertain.  The loss of this organization would be a great misfortune for asylum seekers in Michigan.  If you would like to send a donation, please visit their website here.  Even a modest contribution of $25 will pay for meals for all the home’s residents for one day.  Hopefully, with contributions from friends and some new grant money, Freedom House will be able to continue its works for many years to come.

Continue reading