Egyptian Coast Guard Fires on, Kills Syrian Refugees

by Jason Dzubow

One of the benefits–if that is the right word–of working on asylum cases is that you get to learn about a side of the world that is hidden. Countries that persecute people usually don’t like to publicize what they do. Most times, the knowledge really isn’t all that news worthy. It’s interesting and sad, but we’re all busy, and there’s only so much time in the day to worry about these things. But a client recently sent me this story, and I wanted to pass it on. It reflects one small piece of the Syrian refugee crisis.

Syrian refugees on the boat. The woman killed by the Egyptian Coast Guard is visible at the bottom right.
Syrian refugees on the boat. The woman killed by the Egyptian Coast Guard is visible at the bottom right.

My client is a Syrian asylum seekers (currently stuck in limbo along with most asylum seekers in the U.S.). He has contacts with the Syrian Free Army and has been involved in the humanitarian effort to help his people (the UN estimate that the war has created 1.5 million refugees and 4 million IDPs).

Apparently, some Syrian refugees in Egypt were trying to escape Egypt and reach Sweden. The first leg of their journey involved a boat trip to Italy. While they were still in Egyptian waters, the Egyptian Coast Guard chased them, fired on their boat with live ammunition, and then captured the refugees. Two people were killed by the gunfire. As of today, the refugees–men, women, and children–remain detained in Egypt in difficult conditions. My client was able to talk with one of the detained refugees by cell phone. Below are some excerpts from the conversation (translated from Arabic and edited by me for clarity).

The trip began last Tuesday, September 17, at 8:00 AM. We started from the shores of Alexandria, Egypt towards Italy. We hoped to reach Sweden to apply for political asylum. When the boat left, we were in extremely hard conditions and the boat itself was in very bad shape and very old. The boat was carrying almost 200 persons, including 30 children as young as four months old. There were also about 50 women; some of them are pregnant. The rest were men aged 20 to over 50.

After sailing for almost an hour, we were surprised that the Egyptian Coast Guard was tracking us. They began shooting live ammunition towards us, even though they could hear the screams of women and children and all the people on-board, and we waved our hands at them hoping they would stop shooting. They did not respond to our desperate cries and they kept shooting at us until our boat stopped. Then some Coast Guard members jumped onto our boat and threatened everyone with their guns. They did not even try to help the wounded among us.

The daughter of Fadwa Taha mourns her dead mother.
The daughter of Fadwa Taha mourns her dead mother.

When the situation calmed down for a moment, we discovered that there were two dead people, killed by the shooting. They are Omar Dalloul, a man in his late thirties, and Fadwa Taha, a woman in her fifties. There were also two people wounded–a 15-year-old boy and a young man who is 20 years old.

After that, the boat was towed to Aboukir Harbor in Alexandria (which is a military harbor), the coast guard did not allow any humanitarian agencies or media to document the incident. They pressured us to leave the boat. We tried our best not to leave the boat before having any organization present like the Red Cross or other humanitarian organization. We stood on the boat for four hours and tried to contact anyone to help us, but it was no use. Finally, the Egyptians promised that we would go to the police station for an hour to sign some paperwork and then be released.  But when we arrived at the police station, they took our passports and we have not been allowed to leave.

Immediately after we left the boat, we were detained in the port for 15 hours in the open. The children and women slept on the floor without any blankets. Finally, at around 2:00 AM on Wednesday, our group was divided up and we were transferred to two police station in Alexandria: Almountazah 2 Police Department and Aboukir Police Point.

Syrian men and boys detained at the Egyptian police station.
Syrian men and boys detained at the Egyptian police station.

The situation is very bad in prison. The part of the prison where we are does not have water or bathrooms because it is still under construction. Every day, construction workers and painters come and work here and the kids are suffering from the smell of paint. Also, there is a swamp nearby and so we are suffering from mosquitoes and flies.

We have babies who need nursing and the police won’t let them out of the prison. We have a boy who is here alone without his parents. When his family came to take him, the police didn’t agree. They said that he is charged and he needs to stay in prison. He is nine years old.

No media have covered our story, but we think some charity knows we are here because we are receiving food. We are not sure who is providing it, but it is not from the prison.

As far as I know, the refugees are still detained in Alexandria. Of course, I cannot verify this story, but it comes from a source I trust.

Egypt has signed the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol. We can only hope that despite the turmoil in their own country, the Egyptians will live up to their obligations and treat these and other refugees with respect.

Continue reading

The American Citizens’ Guide to Seeking Asylum Abroad

by Jason Dzubow

This piece was originally published by [wherever] magazine, an out of place journal of travel literature, travel culture, and travel politics. I will periodically be blogging for the new magazine, which seems like a very cool publication (probably too cool for the likes of me, but for now, I’m still in).

I wrote this piece because I am contacted pretty regularly by U.S. citizens who are seeking asylum abroad, or who are thinking about it. Some of these asylum seekers are not so legitimate in my estimation–criminals who hope to avoid the consequences of their crimes. Others represent sad situations that involve people who have been frustrated by their inability to receive help from the government. Victims of domestic abuse are one example in this category. Also, there are those who are engaged in political activity (or what they consider political activity) that could result in criminal penalties here. Edward Snowden falls into this category. So do certain cannabis activists and others in favor of drug legalization (people who consider drug use a political act).

Some people need to flee the U.S.; others just need to leave already.
Some people need to flee the U.S.; others just need to leave already.

OK, without further ado, the original piece is here (where you can also check out some interesting articles and photos), and a slightly shortened version is below:

Let’s say you’ve decided to flee the United State of America. You’re not some high-profile asylum seeker like Edward Snowden, who can count on help from a rival government (Russia). Instead, you’re just an ordinary asylum seeker, who will have to demonstrate that you qualify for protection under international law. How would you go about it? 

To qualify for asylum, you need to demonstrate that you are a “refugee” under international law. According to the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, a “refugee” is “any person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” The first thing you need to do in order to qualify for asylum is to leave the United States.

While a Julian Assange might get away with living in a friendly embassy (Ecuador in his case), you’re probably no Julian Assange.  Most people who ask for refuge inside an embassy will be summarily evicted. So don’t think you can simply waltz into the nearest consulate of your choice, tell them you need assistance, and that they will provide you with a bed and three squares. It just doesn’t work that way. So you’ll first need to get out of the U.S.

Assuming you make it safely to your new country, you will need to show that you were persecuted in the past or that you have a well-founded fear of future persecution. “Persecution” has been defined as “an extreme concept, marked by the infliction of suffering or harm… in a way regarded as offensive.” So for example, if you’re a cannabis activist who faces jail time for smoking pot, you likely would not qualify for asylum because this punishment is not severe enough to constitute “persecution.”

Even if you have been persecuted, that might not be enough to win your asylum case—the persecution has to be on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. If you fear harm because you revealed government secrets, a la Edward Snowden, that might not be considered one of the protected grounds, and so you would be out of luck (though perhaps you could argue that your “whistleblowing” was a form of political activity and thus gain protection). Also, if you fear persecution from criminal gangs, or you face domestic violence, or you will be harmed because of your sexual orientation, you may or may not qualify for asylum—it depends on the law of the country where you are requesting protection. For this reason, you would be well served by doing some research about the country where you plan to seek protection before you make the trip. 

So how do you actually make the claim for asylum once you reach your destination country? In many countries (including most countries you’d actually want to go to), there is a form to complete where you provide information about yourself and your claim. You also need to submit evidence—identity documents like your passport, and school and work records, evidence of harm such as medical records and police reports, letters from people attesting to your problems. Then you will be interviewed about your application. Small mistakes on the form or during the interview—a wrong date for example—might cause the adjudicator to conclude that you are not credible, and that your claim is false. Also, seeking asylum from a powerful and influential country like the U.S., a country that generally respects human rights, will be an uphill battle. And remember, there is a good chance you will be doing all of this in a language you don’t understand, possibly while the host government is detaining you as an illegal migrant. The case will take months if you are lucky and years if you are not. Some governments provide limited benefits such as housing and a small stipend for people with pending asylum cases; other governments require asylum seekers to fend for themselves.

Assuming you pass the interview and are granted asylum, what then? You might receive some assistance from the host country—housing, language instruction, job placement—or you might not. In some countries, you can petition to bring your immediate relatives (minor children and spouse) to join you. This will likely take many months, on top of the many months you already waited for the decision in your case.  If you ever return to the U.S., you will quite possibly lose your asylum status and be deported from your new home. So there is a good chance you can’t ever come back, and you probably won’t see many of your relatives and friends again.

As you can see, asylum is often a difficult, frightening, and traumatic process.  Good Luck (though you will need more than that!).

Continue reading

130 Comments

U.S. Embassies Violate Asylum Seeker Confidentiality

by Jason Dzubow

Two recent incidents involving my asylum seeker clients have revealed what might be a disturbing trend at the overseas U.S. consulates: A near complete disregard for asylum seeker confidentiality.

Both incidents involved family members of asylum seekers who had applied for visas to enter the United States. One incident occurred in Europe; the other in the Middle East. In each case, family members of asylum applicants applied for non-immigrant visas to the United States. The asylum cases were pending at the time the family members went for their interviews. In each case, the consular officer denied the visa and told the family member that the reason for the denial was because their relative had filed for asylum in the U.S., and that they (the family members) were thus intending immigrants, ineligible for non-immigrant visas.

Some people just can't keep a secret.
Some people just can’t keep a secret.

Asylum cases are supposed to be confidential. Confidentiality is important because some foreign governments will punish people who have “defamed” them by seeking asylum abroad. Indeed, when the U.S. government has violated an asylum seeker’s confidentiality, it may create a new basis for an asylum claim. The most well-known example is President Obama’s aunt, who received asylum after her case was leaked to the press.

I have successfully made such claims on behalf of clients whose confidentiality was violated by U.S. Embassies during overseas investigations. The most egregious case involved the U.S. Embassy in Cameroon (this was some years ago).  The Embassy submitted a letter, stating that they had inquired only whether a certain police officer worked at a certain police station (the officer had signed a warrant against my client). The Embassy letter emphasized that confidentiality had been maintained. In the response letter from the police in Cameroon, it was clear that the U.S. Embassy had revealed much more information about my client–the letter referenced the case number against the client and the date of his arrest. If the Embassy had revealed only what they claimed to have revealed about my client, there is no way that the Cameroonian police would have had this additional information. By revealing identifying information to the police, the U.S. Embassy put my client at additional risk.

The more recent cases from Europe and the Middle East are perhaps less egregious because the information was revealed to family members and not to the home government. Nevertheless, it is a problem. Many people–including many of my clients–have claimed asylum based on persecution by family members. This is true in cases involving domestic violence, forced marriage, and (sometimes) persecution based on sexual orientation, for example. Thus, revealing an asylum application, even to family members, potentially endangers the applicant.

In addition, of course, it is a violation of the law, which requires confidentiality. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.6(c) & 1208.6(c). Indeed, government officials who violate this provision can be fired. See Lewis v. Dep’t of Justice, 34 Fed. Appx. 774 (Fed.Cir.2002) (unpublished opinion) (affirming decision of Merit Systems Protection Board concluding that breach of section 208.6 was a firing offense irrespective of whether that breach was harmless).  

So what will become of my clients and their family members? And what about the consular officers who violated my clients’ confidentiality?

I don’t see how the rejection of the family members could affect my clients’ asylum cases. Of course, they will remain separated from their families, which is a severe hardship, but it should not impact their chances to receive asylum (in fact, one of the clients did recently receive asylum). As for the family members, instead of coming here immediately, they will now wait for a “follow to join” petition and they will have to come here as asylees. This may not be what they want, but there is no other option.

As for the consular officers, it is unlikely that my clients will make complaints against them. We do not even know their names (though I suppose we could find out) and it would be the family members’ words against the consular officers, so I doubt anything would come of it.

I do hope that the State Department will be more careful about revealing confidential information in the future. There really was no reason to tell the family members about my clients’ asylum applications. The consular officers could simply have denied the visas without an explanation (as they often do anyway).

Confidentiality of asylum claims is important to the asylum seekers and to the integrity of the asylum system. I hope that consular officers will take their responsibility in this regard more seriously.

Continue reading

12 Comments

Edward Snowden and the Realpolitik of Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

As of this writing, it appears that Edward Snowden, the NSA “whistleblower,” is holed up in the Moscow airport looking for a country to take him in. He already has offers of asylum from Bolivia, Venezuela, and (mi país) Nicaragua. I’ve previously written that Mr. Snowden likely does not qualify for asylum under international law, so why would these countries offer him refuge? The answer is what I would call the “realpolitik” of asylum law.

Realpolitik has been defined as “politics or diplomacy based primarily on power… rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises.”  

Remember when living in an airport used to be cute?
Remember when living in an airport used to be cute?

As applied to asylum law, realpolitik means that the receiving country is not concerned about whether the applicant meets the international law definition of refugee. Rather, the receiving country has some ulterior motive for granting asylum; it hopes to benefit itself or harm a rival by granting refuge.

In Mr. Snowden’s case, it’s not hard to imagine why certain countries–Russia, China, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua–have been willing to facilitate his journey. Russia and China, for example, have poor human rights records, authoritarian governments, and restrictions on press freedom (Freedom House rates both countries “not free”). China in particular is known for censoring the internet and cyber piracy. Venezuela has a less than stellar record when it comes to press freedom and free speech, and it apparently spies on its own citizens. Maybe by assisting Mr. Snowden, these countries hope to improve their own image while bringing the U.S. down a notch or two. Bolivia and Nicaragua perhaps see helping Mr. Snowden as “pay back” for years on the receiving end of American foreign policy (I’m thinking of the Contras in Nicaragua and–more recently–the diversion of the Bolivian president’s plane in an effort to capture Mr. Snowden).

In addition, all these countries might want to show the world that they are not afraid to stand up to the U.S. They might gain prestige (at least in their own minds) if they are seen confronting the big kid on the block.

Another reason that the different countries might offer asylum to Mr. Snowden is that they want to encourage people who damage the U.S. government’s foreign policy. Particularly when foreign relations are viewed as a zero sum game, it makes sense to diminish your rival in order to help yourself. I can see how this rationale might apply to China and the Latin American countries, but I am not sure it works with Russia. Both the U.S. and Russia have been harmed by extremist Islamic terrorists, and you’d think that there would be a mutual interest in fighting this threat (the two countries worked together after the Boston Marathon bombing, for example). It would seem to me that Russia’s protection of Mr. Snowden (and the implied endorsement of his actions) would be counter to that country’s interest in cooperating with us to stop terrorism.

Finally, I suppose it’s possible that the countries aiding Mr. Snowden are helping because they truly believe he did the right thing and they want to support him. Call me cynical, but this I doubt. The idea that Russia or China believe in the principle of government transparency is laughable. Even the Latin American countries, with their Left leaning governments that might support government transparency, seem more interested in antagonizing the U.S. and asserting their independence than in standing up for the principles that Mr. Snowden represents.

As a lawyer interested in humanitarian international law, I fear that when the asylum law is misused for realpolitik purposes, the system is weakened and made less legitimate. Asylum cases always implicate international relations; Mr. Snowden’s case more than most. But the hope is that such considerations can be minimized in order to provide protection to people fleeing persecution, regardless of the political consequences of granting (or denying) asylum.

Continue reading

6 Comments

Remembering the Evian Conference, 75 Years Later

by Jason Dzubow

Next week marks the 75th anniversary of the Evian Conference, held from July 6-15, 1938. The purpose of the meeting was to find a solution to the problem of Jewish refugees fleeing from Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, the conference was an utter failure.

First, a bit of background: Adolph Hitler came to power in 1933, in the midst of a world wide depression. At the same time, tight immigration quotas limited the number of people permitted to come to the United States, and given the dire economic situation, there was little political will or public interest in lifting restrictions to assist refugees. Meanwhile, the noose was tightening around German Jewry. As early as 1933, laws were enacted to restrict Jewish rights. In 1935, the Nazi government passed the Nuremburg Laws, which deprived Jews of their German citizenship. German Jews began to flee the country in increasing numbers. 

You know you're in trouble when you make Rafael Trujillo look like a humanitarian.
You know you’re in trouble when you make Rafael Trujillo look like a humanitarian.

By 1938, about half of Germany’s 900,000 Jews had left the country, mostly to British Palestine (this, despite strict limits on the number of Jews who were legally permitted to immigrate to Palestine). Meanwhile, in March 1938, Hitler annexed Austria, bringing an additional 200,000 Jews under Nazi jurisdiction.

A few months later, in July 1938, Great Britain, the United States, and 30 other countries met in France at Evian-les-Baines. The purpose of the Evian Conference was to address the refugee crisis created by Jews and others fleeing Nazi persecution. Despite high hopes, in the end, the conference accomplished little. The U.S. agreed that its existing quota of 30,000 immigrants per year from Germany and Austria would be reserved for Jewish refugees. Great Britain committed to accept a similar number of refugees, and Australia agreed to accept 15,000. With the exception of the Dominican Republic, no other country agreed to take significant numbers of refugees.  

In an interesting historical footnote, the dictator of the Dominican Republic, Rafael Trujillo, who was responsible for killing tens of thousands of his own people, agreed to accept 100,000 Jewish refugees. He even donated land in his country for them to settle. Ultimately, only about 800 refugees were able to reach the Dominican Republic, and after the war, most resettled in the United States.

The American politician Walter Mondale eloquently summed up the conference’s failure 40 years after the fact:

At stake at Evian were both human lives – and the decency and self-respect of the civilized world. If each nation at Evian had agreed on that day to take in 17,000 Jews at once, every Jew in the Reich could have been saved. As one American observer wrote, “It is heartbreaking to think of the …desperate human beings … waiting in suspense for what happens at Evian. But the question they underline is not simply humanitarian … it is a test of civilization.”  

According to the United Nations, there are currently about 15 million refugees and 27 million displaced persons in the world. As we debate the current immigration bill, and decide how we will respond to this ongoing crisis, I wonder how our actions will be judged by history. I hope we have learned something in the last 75 years, and that we will remember our moral duty to help those in need.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Former CIA Official Reveals Secrets, Plans to Seek Asylum Abroad

by Jason Dzubow

The man who revealed the U.S. government’s program of secret surveillance, including of millions of U.S. citizens, has fled to Hong Kong and indicated that he will be seeking asylum from “any countries that believe in free speech and oppose the victimization of global privacy.”

Edward Snowden is a 29-year former CIA employee who was working for the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, where he contracted with the National Security Agency. The Washington Post describes the details of Mr. Snowden’s reveal:

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets….

Mr. Snowden fled to China, where stealing U.S. secrets is a national pastime.
Mr. Snowden fled to China, where stealing U.S. secrets is a national pastime.

The Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper responded to the revelations last week:

Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats. The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.

Mr. Snowden came forward and identified himself over the weekend. “I have no intention of hiding who I am,” he said, “because I know I have done nothing wrong.” Mr. Snowden is clearly convinced of the righteousness of his cause:

I can’t in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.

I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest. There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn’t turn over, because harming people isn’t my goal. Transparency is.

By revealing himself, Mr. Snowden has put his freedom and his future (and perhaps his life) at risk.

Here, I don’t want to discuss the virtues of Mr. Snowden’s actions (though I will note that I have been critical of another whistleblower/asylum seeker, Julian Assange, whose revelations put many people at risk). Rather, I want to discuss the merits of any potential asylum claim by Mr. Snowden.

To qualify for asylum under international law, a person must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion. At least under U.S. asylum law, whistleblowers have been found eligible for asylum in some circumstances:

Whistleblowing against one’s supervisors at work is not, as a matter of law, always an exercise of political opinion. However, where the whistle blows against corrupt government officials, it may constitute political activity sufficient to form the basis of persecution…

So the first question is whether Mr. Snowden’s actions constitute whistleblowing. I suppose that would depend on whether he was blowing the whistle against illegal activities or simply against activities that he disagreed with. If it was the latter, it would seem to me that granting him asylum would set a dangerous precedent. Does anyone who disagrees with a democratically elected government have the right to break laws they disagree with, search for a country willing to accept them, and then flee to that country for asylum? Sad to say, the answer is probably “yes,” but I think this does not bode well for international law or relations.

Reasonable minds can differ on whether Mr. Snowden’s actions were justified or whether they constitute whistleblowing. But assuming we accept that such actions are whistleblowing, we need to be prepared to deal with the consequential damage to the rule of law. 

Second, even if Mr. Snowden’s actions constitute whistleblowing and can be characterized as an expression of his political opinion, he still needs to demonstrate that he faces persecution–as opposed to prosecution–on account of those actions. While I would like to think that any asylum seeker fleeing the U.S. would have a hard time demonstrating that he faces prosecution, I am not so sure. Between waterboarding, indefinite detention, and the over-use of solitary confinement (not to mention the death penalty, which probably would not apply to him), an asylum seeker like Mr. Snowden can probably make a decent argument that he would suffer persecution if he were returned to the United States.

Overall, I think Mr. Snowden will have a difficult–but not impossible–time qualifying for asylum under international law. However, like Julian Assange, there will probably be a number of countries willing to offer him asylum. If so, it likely will not be based on a careful analysis of international law, but instead on a calculation of that country’s own interests vis-a-vis the United States.

Continue reading

3 Comments

First Muslim Lesbian Couple to Wed in UK Seeks Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

The Daily Mail reports that a “pair of Pakistani women have made history as the first Muslim lesbian couple to get married” in the United Kingdom:

The couple could not find an Imam to marry them or, apparently, a decent wedding photographer (focus!).
The couple could not find an Imam to marry them or, apparently, a decent wedding photographer (focus!).

Rehana Kausar, 34, and Sobia Kamar, 29, made history when they tied the knot in a register office civil ceremony, then immediately applied for political asylum after they were wed, claiming their lives would be in danger if they returned to their native country.

The pair, from the Lahore and Mirpur regions of Pakistan, said they had received death threats from opponents in Pakistan – where homosexual acts are illegal and considered against Islam. And since news of their wedding earlier this month spread, the pair claimed they had even received death threats from the UK.

The couple was not married in an Islamic ceremony because they could not find an Imam in Britain willing to marry them.

Pakistan has become a fairly violent and lawless society, and–given this couple’s visibility and the death threats they have received–I suspect that their asylum claim will have a high probability of success.

A quick review of reader comments about the Daily Mail article shows that people’s main concern is that the women’s case will open the floodgates, and that anyone claiming to be gay will be able to obtain asylum in the UK (just so you know, my summary of the reader comments is more polite than the actual comments). I am not so sure that this concern is justified.

For one thing, the situation in Pakistan is not as bad as you might imagine for many LGBT people. The New York Times reported on this issue last year:

Homosexual acts remain illegal in Pakistan, based on laws constructed by the British during colonial rule. No civil rights legislation exists to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination.

But the reality is far more complex, more akin to “don’t ask don’t tell” than a state-sponsored witch hunt. For a long time, the state’s willful blindness has provided space enough for gays and lesbians. They socialize, organize, date and even live together as couples, though discreetly….

[W]hile the notion of homosexuality may be taboo, homosocial, and even homosexual, behavior is common enough. Pakistani society is sharply segregated on gender lines, with taboos about extramarital sex that make it almost harder to conduct a secret heterosexual romance than a homosexual one.

Now that the marriage of Rehana Kausar and Sobia Kamar is so public, they do not have the option of being discrete. Other same-sex couples might not be so visible, and therefore would be less likely to qualify for asylum (many LGBT cases have been denied by the UK because the asylum seekers cannot demonstrate visibility or cannot submit sufficient proof to demonstrate that they are gay).

Also, most same-sex couples will probably not face death threats. And if they do face threats, the threats will most likely come from family members. To win asylum under those circumstances, they would need to show that the government is unable and unwilling to protect them and that they cannot safely relocate within the country.

Finally, while this couple was the first Muslim lesbian couple to wed in the UK, there is nothing new about LGBT people seeking asylum. I have represented many such people in the U.S. and, with one exception (from Fiji), they all received asylum. If the floodgates were going to open for LGBT asylum seekers, it would have happened a long time ago. This most recent case is (unfortunately) just one of many where an LGBT individual will be harmed if she returns to her country.

While the case of Rehana Kausar and Sobia Kamar is significant because it is a “first,” I don’t see how it is significant in terms of developing the law for LGBT asylum seekers. Given what I know of the situation in Pakistan, my guess is that this couple faces a significant threat of harm or death. I hope the UK will see fit to grant their application for protection.

Continue reading

3 Comments

American Lawyer Assists Australian Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

Michael “Dan” Mori is a former Marine Corp attorney who gained fame defending Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks, an Australian national captured by the Americans in Afghanistan.  With Mr. Mori’s help, Mr. Hicks accepted a favorable Alfred plea (basically meaning that he did not admit guilt, but agreed that there was enough evidence to convict him). He was sentenced to seven years in prison for supporting terrorists, a charge that he denies. All but nine months of the sentence were suspended. Mr. Hicks served most of his nine months in Australia and was released. The plea came after five years at Gitmo, under less than pleasant circumstances. The case gained quite a bit of attention, as it was the first conviction by a U.S. war crimes tribunal since World War II.

After the Hick’s case, Mr. Mori’s career in the Marines apparently stalled. He alleged (in a lawsuit) that the military retaliated against him for his work on Mr. Hick’s case. He eventually was promoted, but retired soon thereafter and moved to Australia. There, he started work at the plaintiff law firm Shine as a Social Justice Consultant.

It seems that Mr. Mori’s latest project is to help asylum seekers detained by the Australian government on the island of Nauru.

Come on, Mori, admit it - You took the Nauru gig for the beaches!
Come on, Mori, admit it – You took the Nauru gig for the beaches!

Nauru is a small island republic in a remote part of the Pacific Ocean. The country became wealthy in the 1960s and 70s by exploiting mineral resources, but when those ran out, the economy went bust. In 2001, Nauru entered into an agreement with Australia to house refugees seeking admission to Australia. In exchange, Australia provides Nauru with financial assistance and technical aid.

The refugee detention center on Nauru has been controversial, and it has closed and re-opened several times. The latest incarnation of the detention center  opened last year in August and holds about 400 men. After a visit to Nauru, Amnesty International described the camp as “a human rights catastrophe … a toxic mix of uncertainty, unlawful detention and inhumane conditions.”  

In September 2012, there was an alleged riot at the camp and property was destroyed. The government charged 10 detainees with rioting and destruction of property. The case of the “Nauru 10” is currently pending, and this is where Mr. Mori comes into the picture.

Mr. Mori and other defense lawyers filed a habeas corpus petition in Nauru, claiming that the detainees are being unlawfully held. The defense team convinced a Nauru court to adjourn the criminal charges until the habeas issue is resolved, and that issue remains pending.

“Whether or not you agree with the process… you have to agree that people being detained should have access to legal help,” said Mr. Mori, who compared the situation in Nauru with Guantanamo Bay. “You have to push the politics aside and remember, if someone’s detained they need access to the law.”

There is a lot at stake for Nauru, which has become dependent on the Australian aid, and for the asylum seekers, whose fate rests in the hands of the Nauru court system. I hope that Mr. Mori and the other lawyers can bring a measure of justice to this obscure corner of the globe.

Continue reading

5 Comments

Would the Last Eritrean to Flee the Country Please Turn Out the Lights

by Jason Dzubow

There’s an old joke from the Soviet era where Leonid Brezhnev is talking to his deputy. Brezhnev says, “If we lift the Iron Curtain and allow our people to leave the U.S.S.R., the only ones who will be left here are you and me.” The deputy responds, “Speak for yourself.”

Repressive regimes often prevent their people from leaving. If the doors were open, everybody would go. The classic example of this in today’s world is North Korea. The state is a vicious dictatorship run by a spoiled child. Few people are able to escape from North Korea, and those who do usually end up in China, which is not exactly a paragon of human rights.

Official portrait of the Eritrean National Soccer Team.
Official portrait of the Eritrean National Soccer Team.

If there were a contest for most repressive regime after North Korea, Eritrea would certainly be in the running. The country is a single party state that allows no dissent and has no independent media (it is actually rated worse than North Korea in terms of press freedom–how is that even possible?!). There is a “national service” program that is akin to slavery and members of “unregistered” religions are severely persecuted and killed. On the other hand, they have nice weather this time of year.

Eritreans are not permitted to leave the country without permission, which is often impossible to obtain. But given conditions in Eritrea, and the fact that the country has a long–and difficult to police–land border, many Eritreans flee the country and seek asylum abroad.  Most Eritrean asylum seekers end up in neighboring countries: In 2008, for example, over 8,000 Eritreans sought asylum in Ethiopia and about 13,000 registered as refugees in Sudan. According to the United Nations, in 2011, about 11,900 Eritreans sought asylum in the industrialized world (basically North America, Europe, and Israel), and Eritrea has consistently ranked in the top dozen source countries for asylum-seekers. 

As you might expect, there have been high profile defections. Last year, two Eritrean pilots stole a government jet, flew to Saudi Arabia, and asked for asylum. Last month, a female Eritrean pilot sent to Saudi Arabia to retrieve the stolen jet also defected and has asked the Saudis for asylum. To me, the fact that a woman pilot would request asylum in Saudi Arabia–a country where women are not allowed to drive cars, let alone fly airplanes–speaks volumes about the desperation of these people.

Eritrean soccer players have also defected in droves. In 2006, four players defected in Kenya. The next year, 12 players requested asylum while in Tanzania. Also in 2007, another six players sought asylum in Angola and three more defected and requested asylum in Sudan. After that, the Eritrean government required soccer players traveling abroad to post a bond before leaving the country. Despite this precaution, 12 players defected in Kenya after a tournament in 2009. And last December, the entire team (along with their doctor) disappeared in Uganda. They requested asylum from Kampala. Given this record, its not too surprising that the team has never qualified for the World Cup or the  African Nations Cup.

In my practice, I have represented many asylum seekers from Eritrea. They fear indefinite conscription, and religious or political persecution. My clients have been physically beaten, detained in metal shipping containers, and treated as slaves. Their family members have disappeared or been killed. Indeed, the situation is so bad that the United Nations actually created special guidelines for assessing Eritrean asylum claims.

While the civilized governments of the world should be working to change the regime in Eritrea (and other countries that abuse human rights), we should continue to offer asylum to people who flee such places.

Continue reading

8 Comments

Pity the Persecutors

by Jason Dzubow

Passover is the holiday where we remember the Jews’ exodus from slavery in Egypt. As we all know, it didn’t end well for the Egyptians, what with the 10 plagues (including death of the first born – oy vey!), and then the business about drowning in the Red Sea.

The Passover Seder is the meal where we re-tell the story of the Exodus. At the Seder, we dip our finger (or a spoon for the germ-o-phobes among us) into  our wine 10 times, and remove one drop each time. This reminds us that the joy of our liberation is diminished by the suffering of the Egyptians.  

Don't you Jews eat any other part of the Matzah?
Don’t you Jews eat any other part of the Matzah?

I often think about how the source countries for my clients are affected by my clients’ departure. Many of my clients are well educated and talented people. They are exactly the type of people the source countries need in order to improve. The only problem is that such people are often targeted by fascist regimes (like the Syrian government) or extremists movements (like the Taliban).

Some would argue that people like my clients should stay in their countries and work (or fight) for change. That is easy to say for people who do not live in such places, and who do not face threats to themselves and their family members. Many of my clients did, in fact, work for change in their countries before they left. For example, I am about to file the case of an Afghan man who worked for various NGOs helping children and women. After receiving many threats, he was brutally attacked with a knife (necessitating numerous surgeries), and finally fled for his life. His case is in some ways typical of my clients. They continue their good work in the face of death threats, but at some point, they feel compelled to leave. International humanitarian law exists to help such people, and my feeling is that each person needs to make his own decision about whether to stay or go (the Washington Post recently ran a depressing photo essay about this choice in the context of Syria).

One thing that seems obvious is that when such people leave, their home countries are diminished. While I can’t say I pity the persecutors, I do feel bad that good people–people who could make a difference in their home countries–are forced to leave. This harms the people who are left behind and helps create a vicious cycle: Conditions are bad, so good people leave, and then conditions get worse, so more good people leave.

My one hope, which I see with my clients, is that they often remain engaged trying to help their homelands. Many of my clients are journalists and human rights activists. They can continue to support change in their home countries (by working for the media, for human rights organizations or for the U.S. government), while living safely in the United States. 

So as we celebrate Passover, I am thankful for freedom and safety. But I will also try to remain cognizant of those who are left behind.

Continue reading

Russia Angered by UK Asylum Grant

by Jason Dzubow

Recently, I wrote about people from friendly countries receiving asylum in the United States. There are few such cases, and they generally seem to be aberrations.  For these reasons, the source countries are not particularly concerned that we are granting asylum to their nationals.  That is not always the case, however. 

Russia called. They want their Baryshnikov back.
Russia called. They want their Baryshnikov back.

Earlier this month, the United Kingdom granted asylum to Andrey Borodin, a 45-year-old Russian banking tycoon, who owns Britain’s most expensive private house (it’s quite nice, as you can see here). Russian authorities accuse Mr. Borodin of bank fraud.  But Mr. Borodin claims that the charges were trumped up after he accused a key ally of President Vladimir Putin of corruption. The case became public after Mr. Borodin and his lawyer spoke to the press about receiving refuge in the UK (Britain, like the U.S., keeps such claims confidential).

Moscow was not pleased by the Brit’s offer of asylum:

The Russian premier’s press secretary Natalya Timakova said that the accusations against Mr. Borodin—who fled to London in April 2011—are of “pure criminal character” involving the Bank of Moscow, which he formerly owned. “There [is] now a practice of seeking political asylum, especially in England, whereby it doesn’t matter what the seeker has done,” she said. “What matters is how loudly he shouts about political persecution—and this will become a guarantee that the asylum will be granted.” Ms. Timakova accused Britain of ignoring that Interpol “is after him.” Moscow also insists that it would continue to demand Mr. Borodin’s extradition from Britain.

Mr. Borodin counters (probably correctly) that, “Any political asylum seeker must submit the application together with… proof showing the political character of the persecution in his native country.” “My lawyers submitted all necessary proof,” added Mr. Borodin. 

This case reminds me of one I worked on as a wee law clerk at the Arlington Immigration Court. Alexander Konanykhin was a Russian businessman in the roaring 90’s who made hundreds of millions of dollars. The Russian government eventually seized most of his assets and forced him to flee for his life. He made his way to the United States, but the Russians wanted him back and INS tried to deport him. After an epic trial in 1999, he received asylum. The asylum grant was overturned, but later (in 2007) re-instated, and Mr. Konanykhin is now a successful businessman in the United States. Although Mr. Konanykhin always seemed a bit shady to me, it was quite clear that the Russian government was up to no good. Mr. Konanykhin called the government a “Mafiocracy.” 

Between the UK and Russia, I will choose the UK, and–Gerard Depardieu notwithstanding–my bet is that there was ample evidence that Mr. Borodin faced persecution on account of his political activities. He would certainly not be the first Putin opponent to end up in jail (Mikhail Khodorkovsky) or dead (Anna Politkovskaya).

Russia can complain about Britain (or the U.S.) granting asylum to its nationals. But so long as those countries follow international human rights law, and so long as the Russian government continues to persecute its opponents, Russians will be able to obtain asylum in the West. To (badly) paraphrase The Bard: The fault, dear Putin, lies not in the asylum process, but in yourself.

Continue reading

American Software Mogul Denied Asylum in Guatemala

by Jason Dzubow

If you’re reading this on a PC, there’s a good chance that your anti-virus protection is based on a program designed by John McAfee.  Mr. McAfee, 67, was a pioneer of anti-virus software, and the company that bears his name is today one of the largest anti-virus companies in the world.  At one time, his net worth exceeded $100 million, but his fortune dwindled and in 2008, he moved from the U.S. to Belize.

There, Mr. McAfee apparently led an increasingly extreme lifestyle, which included drugs, prostitutes, and feuds with his neighbors.

An American seeking asylum in Guatemala is kind of like a child giving presents to Santa Claus.

It’s seems Mr. McAfee also had an uneasy relationship with the authorities in his new country.  In April of this year, the Belize Gang Suppression Unit raided his house looking for a Meth lab.  Mr. McAfee was briefly detained and then released.

His current odyssey began on November 12, 2012 when police started searching for him as a “person of interest” in connection to the murder of his neighbor in Belize, another expatriate American, who was shot to death.

Mr. McAfee fled to Guatemala and–like any respectable computer guy–started a blog to chronicle his ordeal.

After almost a month on the lam, the Guatemalan authorities apprehended Mr. McAfee for entering the country illegally, and prepared to deport him to Belize.  Mr. McAfee promptly requested asylum.  Just as promptly it seems, the Guatemalan authorities denied his request.  According to the Washington Post:

McAfee’s legal team said they were preparing to appeal the denial of asylum to the country’s constitutional court, a process that could give McAfee perhaps another day or two in Guatemala.  The court would have to issue a decision within 48 hours.

For his part, Mr. McAfee appealed for his blog readers to please “email the President of Guatemala and beg him to allow the court system to proceed, to determine my status in Guatemala, and please support the political asylum that I am asking for.”  He adds, “Please PLEASE be very POLITE in your communications, and I thank you.”  (Mr. McAfee is blogging from jail in Guatemala, which he called a “groundbreaking activity”).

As of this writing, Mr. McAfee’s asylum case is still on appeal.  But it seems to me that under the international law definition of asylum, Mr. McAfee simply does not qualify.  First, to receive asylum, a person must demonstrate that he has a well founded fear of persecution (as opposed to prosecution).  “Persecution” is (usually) some type of severe physical harm. There is no indication that Mr. McAfee will be prosecuted in Belize, let alone persecuted. He is currently a person of interest in a criminal investigation. This is a far cry from being detained and/or physically harmed.

Possibly, the murder investigation is a pretext for persecuting Mr. McAfee.  Indeed, he claims that there is a “political vendetta” against him because he did not “donate enough money to the government.”  Even if this is the case, he must show that the persecution is “on account of” his race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion.  Unless there is more to the story, failure to “donate” money to the government would not fall into one of these protected categories.

Finally, even if Mr. McAfee faces persecution in Belize on account of a protected ground, he is still not eligible for asylum.  The reason is that he is a citizen of the United States.  Asylum is available to people who face persecution from their home country; not from a third country. To avoid persecution, Mr. McAfee could (theoretically at least) receive protection from the U.S. government. In his blog, Mr. McAfee states that he asked the United States Embassy for help, but they told him that there was nothing they could do.

While I think that Mr. McAfee cannot qualify for asylum, I certainly believe that the government of Guatemala should not return him to Belize if there is reason to believe that he will be persecuted or tortured in that country. The UN Convention Against Torture (which Guatemala ratified) would prevent Mr. McAfee from being sent to Belize if he would be tortured there.

While his claims seem far-fetched (the president of Belize called them “bonkers“), Mr. McAfee, like everyone else who fears harm if he is deported, should not be removed without due process of law.  Obviously, asylum law and the UN Convention Against Torture cannot be used to subvert the criminal law.  But if someone fears harm in a country, he should not be sent to that country until his claim is reviewed on the merits.  In this case, before he is sent anywhere, Guatemala and the United States (through its embassy) should ensure that Mr. McAfee does not face persecution or torture if he is returned to Belize.

Continue reading

Gay Rights and the UN: One Step Back, One Step Forward

by Jason Dzubow

Sexual orientation is all about identity: Are you gay or straight or bi or trans or questioning or something else?  It seems that the United Nations has some identity issues of its own when it comes to LGBT rights.    

This past September, a “traditional values” resolution sponsored by Russia passed in the UN Human Rights Counsel, 25-15, with seven abstentions (the U.S. voted against).  The text of the resolution and a list of countries and their votes can be found here.  The resolution reaffirms that “everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms… without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”  The basic problem is that this list purposefully omits the reference to sexual orientation.  Thus (as usual), the term “traditional values” is code for “anti-gay.”  

The UN has a split personality when it comes to gay rights.

While this particular resolution will probably have little effect, I fear it is an unfortunate bellwether of member states’ positions on LGBT rights and protecting LGBT refugees.  As an aside, my first job as a practicing lawyer was at Catholic Community Services in New Jersey.  I remember being surprised that the Catholic Church–which generally opposes gay rights–was assisting gay asylum seekers.  When you think about it, this is not entirely inconsistent: While the Church opposes gay rights, it also opposes persecution of gay people.  My concern with the UN resolution is that it might be a harbinger of something more sinister–the contraction of protection for people facing persecution on account of their sexual orientation (in 2008, the UN recognized that sexual orientation was a basis for protection under the Refugee Convention).  

But as you might have guessed from the title of this piece, the news from the UN is not all bad. 

Late last month, UNHCR issued new guidelines concerning claims to refugee status based on sexual orientation and gender identity.  The guidelines state:

A proper analysis as to whether a LGBTI applicant is a refugee under the 1951 Convention needs to start from the premise that applicants are entitled to live in society as who they are and need not hide that.  As affirmed by the position adopted in a number of jurisdictions, sexual orientation and/or gender identity are fundamental aspects of human identity that are either innate or immutable, or that a person should not be required to give up or conceal.

The guidelines recognize persecution by governments, society, and family members, and also note that laws criminalizing homosexuality can rise to the level of persecution.

The guidelines also make recommendations concerning refugee status determinations for LGBT applicants.  Most of the recommendations seem like common sense, but I think they are helpful and–given the sentiments of many UN member states concerning LGBT people–worth repeating.  The recommendations include:

– An open and reassuring environment is often crucial to establishing trust between the interviewer and applicant
– Interviewers and decision makers need to maintain an objective approach so that they do not reach conclusions based on stereotypical, inaccurate or inappropriate perceptions of LGBTI individuals
– The interviewer and the interpreter must avoid expressing, whether verbally or through body language, any judgement about the applicant’s sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual behavior or relationship pattern
– Specialized training on the particular aspects of LGBTI refugee claims for decision makers, interviewers, interpreters, advocates and legal representatives is crucial
– Specific requests made by applicants in relation to the gender of interviewers or interpreters should be considered favorably
– Questioning about incidents of sexual violence needs to be conducted with the same sensitivity as in the case of any other sexual assault victims

The U.S. government is ahead of the game in this matter.  In January 2012, USCIS (with help from Immigration Equality) issued a training module to help Asylum Officers with LGBT cases.

So it seems that the UN is of two minds about LGBT rights.  There is no doubt that many countries and societies violently oppress and murder people just because of their sexual orientation.  For their sake, I hope the progressive states continue to pressure the UN to move forward on LGBT issues.

Continue reading

2 Comments

New Canadian Law Attempts to Block Bogus Refugees

by Jason Dzubow

Canada is preparing to implement the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act later this year.  The law is ostensibly designed to protect Canada’s refugee law by weeding out false asylum claimants.  The provisions of the new law include the following:

– The immigration minister would have the power to designate which countries are safe without a committee including human rights experts.

– Rejected refugee claimants from “safe” countries would no longer be able to appeal the decision to the Immigration and Refugee Board (the administrative body that reviews asylum claims).

– Claimants from countries on the safe country list would have limited appeals rights and limited ability to apply for compassionate or humanitarian relief.

The law seems primarily targeted at the Roma (a/k/a Gypsies) who have been coming to Canada from Hungary in large numbers and requesting asylum.  According to the Canadian Immigration Minister, “almost 95 percent of Hungarian asylum claims [are] abandoned, withdrawn or rejected.”  The Minister states that “Countries whose nationals have an acceptance rate of 25% or less, or where 60% or more of claimants from a country have abandoned or withdrawn their claims … would be subject to designation” as a safe country, thus making it more difficult for them to successfully claim asylum.

Under the new Canadian law, Mexico is “safe.”

My first question about this new law is whether it is necessary.  Under the current system, people who can return safely will presumably have their cases denied anyway.  The new law is designed to streamline the system to allow people from certain countries to be deported more quickly.  Also, if people from “safe” countries know that their claims will likely be denied, they may decide not to seek asylum in Canada in the first place.  Proponents of the law claim that all this will save government resources.  But I wonder how many people will actually be dissuaded from coming and–for those who do seek asylum–how much money the government will actually save under the new, streamlined system.  Currently, 95% of asylum claimants from Hungary are unsuccessful, yet Hungarians keep coming to Canada.  If the current (very high) denial rate does not dissuade people from coming, how will the new law?  Further, those who seek asylum from “safe” countries are still entitled to certain procedures and benefits.  It is unclear how much the Canadian government will save by marginally reducing the protections available to such asylum seekers.

Assuming the law is needed, how effective will it be?  The idea of determining in advance whether a country is safe seems antithetical to international refugee law.  Someone once said that no country is safe for everyone all the time.  If 95% of Roma claims are denied, what type of harm do the remaining 5% face?  Also, just because a country has a low overall denial rate for asylum claims does not mean that it is safe.  To cite an example from our side of the border, the denial rate for Mexicans is quite high (about 98%), but certain people from Mexico–journalists and human rights activists–face real danger there.  Another example–while the overall asylum grant rate for Jamaicans is low, the grant for Jamaicans claiming asylum based on sexual orientation is relatively high.  My point is that designating a country “safe” just because the overall grant rate is low will likely result in legitimate asylum seekers being rejected and returned to face persecution. 

Despite these (and other) doubts, the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act will go into effect shortly.  We will then start to get a clearer idea of whether the law will save resources and how it will affect asylum seekers.

Continue reading

4 Comments

Failed Asylum Seeker Stuck in Samoa

by Jason Dzubow

Mikhail Sebastian is an Armenian from Azerbaijan who came to the United States on a Soviet passport in 1995.  After the break-up of the U.S.S.R., neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan would take him, and Mr. Sebastian ended up stateless. 

While in Samoa, beware the Wild Samoans (shown here with the late, great Cap’t Lou)!

He filed for asylum in the U.S., but his claim was ultimately denied (in 2002) and he was ordered removed.  The U.S. immigration authorities took Mr. Sebastian into custody, but after six months, he was released because there was no country that would accept him.  As with other people who cannot be deported, DHS issued Mr. Sebastian a work permit.  He was allowed to remain in the United States, but he did not have permission to travel abroad and then return.

According to a recent article in Salon, Mr. Sebastian has attempted to satisfy his urge to travel by visiting the most exotic American destinations he can find, including Guam, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii.  To facilitate his travels, he has a  “World Passport” from the World Service Authority, which purports to be a global-governmental organization.  A World Passport is a document that is supposed to confer world citizenship and allow travel.  I have some limited experience with the World Passport, and while I think it’s a nice idea, I would not feel confident to use it as a travel document.  Worse, I think their website is a bit misleading.  They claim that many countries accept the World Passport.  While many countries may have accepted the passport once or twice (possibly by mistake), most countries do not generally accept the passport for immigration purposes.

In any case, as part of his overseas travel in U.S. territory, Mr. Sebastian took a vacation to American Samoa, an unincorporated territory (whatever that means) of the United States.  His big mistake seems to have been flying over to plain old Samoa, which is an independent country.  Even if he had not traveled to Samoa, the trip to American Samoa required passing through customs, and when immigration authorities checked him before allowing him to return to the mainland (and saw the World Passport), they found that he had an old removal order.  As a result, he was not permitted to board the return flight, and he has been stranded in American Samoa ever since.

The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement about Mr. Sebastian:

In 2002, an immigration judge with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) ordered Sebastian to depart the United States. At that time, he was not in ICE custody as the agency had deferred action on his removal. In the meantime, he had been granted employment authorization. In December 2011 when Mr. Sebastian traveled to American Samoa and Samoa, he was prohibited from returning to the United States due to the immigration judge’s order.

So for the last 10 months, Mr. Sebastian has been stuck waiting for DHS to allow him to return to the mainland, and there is no end to his ordeal in sight.  Mr. Sebastian has been writing about his predicament, and you can read more about him in his own words here.  It seems he spends most of his time at the local McDonald’s, which has air conditioning and internet access.

His case is particularly strange in that he is actually in U.S.-controlled territory, but he is not allowed to return to the mainland.  If nothing else, Mr. Sebastian’s story serves as a cautionary tale.  If you have some type of deferred action, withholding of removal or Torture Convention relief, you are better off not pushing the limits by traveling to American “territories.”  It seems that Mr. Sebastian’s case is receiving some high-level attention, so likely it will be resolved at some point.  But I am quite certain that after 10 months in Samoa, he wishes he had never taken his vacation in the first place.

Continue reading

8 Comments