One Giant Leap for a Woman; One Small Step for Womankind

by Jason Dzubow

In a recent decision, Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), the BIA held that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” can constitute a cognizable particular social group (“PSG”) for purposes of asylum. The decision is significant because it marks the first time that the Board has published a decision essentially endorsing asylum for victims of domestic violence. Applicants who seek asylum under this standard will still need to prove that the level of harm they face constitutes persecution, that they cannot relocate somewhere else within their country, and that their government is unable or unwilling to protect them. 

This decision on PSG has been a long time coming, but–at least in my opinion–it does not go far enough.

Guatemalan Women celebrate their new particular social group.
Guatemalan Women celebrate their new particular social group.

In 2004, in a case called Matter of R-A-, DHS acknowledged that domestic violence could form the basis for an asylum claim. In that case, DHS argued in a brief that R-A- should receive asylum based on domestic violence. In its brief, DHS defined the PSG as “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship.” Sound familiar? And that was 10 years ago.

Matter of R-A- never resulted in a published BIA decision (though R-A- herself received asylum in 2009). Since the brief was made public in 2004, asylum attorneys have relied on it to advocate for their clients, presumably with some success (since there is no data on the number of cases granted based on domestic violence, it is impossible to know for sure).

To me, the PSG “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” is awkward and contrived. Moreover, to receive asylum based on a PSG, the applicant must show that she was persecuted “on account of” her membership in the PSG. In other words, the persecutor harmed the applicant because she is a member of the PSG. I am not convinced that the husband was harming A-R-C-G- because she was a married woman who was unable to leave the relationship. He would have harmed her whether or not she was married and whether or not she was able to leave the relationship. The husband may have had access to A-R-C-G- because he was married to her and because she was unable to leave, but he was not motivated to harm her for those reasons.

It seems to me that there is a simpler, more elegant PSG that would have been appropriate for this case: “Women.” I suspect that I am not alone in this opinion. In amici curiae briefs, counsels for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies argued that gender alone should be enough to constitute a PSG. Also, at least one federal circuit court (you guessed it – the Ninth) has held that “women in Guatemala” might constitute a particular social group.

“Women” makes sense as the PSG in this case. The evidence in the case suggests that the husband would have persecuted any woman who he was with–whether or not she was married or able to leave him. Further, country condition evidence from Guatemala makes clear that women in that country live in dire circumstances. In its decision, the Board notes that Guatemala “has a culture of ‘machismo and family violence,'” including sexual offenses and spousal rape. The victims of this violence are, for the most part, women. And, by the way, they are not just “Guatemalan women.”  I imagine that if a Salvadoran woman, or a Nicaraguan woman, or a Japanese woman lived in Guatemala and integrated into the society, she would face the same problems as a Guatemalan woman. For this reason, the PSG should be “women,” as opposed to “Guatemalan women.”

But the BIA was not willing to go that far. After noting that counsel for Amici argued in favor of gender alone as the PSG, the Board held, “Since the respondent’s membership in a particular social group is established under the aforementioned group, we need not reach this issue.”

Perhaps that is the way of things. It’s best not to push the law too far, even if it makes logical sense, and even where it would protect additional people. A decision granting asylum to women (or men) who face persecution solely because of their gender would likely open the door to many more asylum seekers. Given the current state of affairs in the asylum world–the border crisis, partisan scrutiny from Congress, the backlog–maybe it’s best not to open the door too far. Maybe a relatively limited decision like Matter of A-R-C-G- is the best we could have hoped for.

I don’t mean to minimize the importance of A-R-C-G-. It is obviously a great win for the alien in that case (though the decision does not finally grant her asylum, it seems very likely that that will be the end result), and it will certainly help many women who face harm from domestic abusers. However, the decision codifies a landscape where women–many without the resources available to people like A-R-C-G- and R-A—will be forced to articulate complicated PSGs and demonstrate that they are members of those PSGs. I am not sure how many poor refugee women will actually be able to do all that.

A-R-C-G- was persecuted because she was a woman. Not because she was a Guatemalan woman, not because she was married, and not because she was unable to leave her husband. Matter of A-R-C-G- is an important step towards protecting women victims of domestic violence. Maybe next time, the BIA will take a giant leap.

Continue reading

8 Comments

Gay = Asylum?

by Jason Dzubow

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (“WSJ”) posits that the number of gay and lesbian people receiving asylum in the United States based on their sexual orientation has surged in recent years and that most such people come from countries in Central America where homosexuality is not criminalized (as opposed to places like Ugandan, where loving the wrong person is a hanging offense). The article, by Joel Millman, concludes that LGBT asylum cases from Mexico and Central America are more likely to be granted than most other types of asylum cases from those countries.

More gay people than ever are fleeing persecution.
More gay people than ever are fleeing persecution.

Heaven forbid that I should agree with the WSJ (Slate certainly didn’t in a piece that pretty clearly misreads the Journal article), but the anecdotal and statistical evidence supports the notion that more people are seeking asylum based on sexual orientation and that those claims are often more likely to succeed than claims by other people from the same countries. But of course, as a certified curmudgeon, I cannot completely agree with the Journal piece, and indeed, I have a few points to take issue with. Then I’d like to pose a question: Is it really easier–as the WSJ claims–for LGBT applicants to obtain asylum in the United States?

First, the issues. To reach his conclusion that more LGBT people are seeking asylum, Mr. Millman relies on two main sources—statistics from the U.S. government and information from Immigration Equality, probably the premier LGBT asylum organization in the country.

As to the statistics, the government does not keep data on the number of people who receive asylum based on sexual orientation. As a rough proxy, the WSJ looked at the percentage of cases granted based on “particular social group” or PSG, the protected category most often used in LGBT asylum cases. The Journal found that as a percentage of total cases, the number of PSG cases has increased over the last several years (from about 12% at the end of the G.W. Bush Administration to 15.7% today).

I am not convinced that this metric tells us a whole lot about the number of gay asylum cases, however. Many people seek asylum based on PSG–gays and lesbians, victims of domestic violence, people fleeing gang persecution, victims of female genital mutilation, to name the most obvious–and so an increase in the percentage of asylum seekers relying on PSG does not necessarily mean that the number of LGBT asylum seekers has gone up. Also, concurrent with our country’s more liberalized approach to LGBT asylum claims, we have expanded protection for other categories of people who fall under PSG. So while the modest increase in asylum seekers relying on PSG supports the notion that LGBT claims are up, I don’t think this data is incredibly significant.

In my opinion, the anecdotal evidence for an increase in the number of LGBT cases is more convincing. According to the WSJ: “Last year, just one New York-based advocacy group, Immigration Equality, helped put 279 LGBT foreigners into the asylum process, a 250% increase from 2009.” That pretty well comports with what I’ve been seeing in DC and what I’ve heard from other lawyers, and so I believe the number of LGBT claimants is up, but by how much, we don’t really know (I have harped on this before, but this lack of reliable data again illustrates the need for better information about asylum seekers).

Another quibble with the article is the WSJ’s comparison of LGBT asylum seekers from Mexico and Central America, where homosexuality is not illegal and—in fact—where laws theoretically protect gay people, with other countries whose governments condemn homosexuality or make it illegal. The article notes that of the top 10 countries with the most PSG grants (where PSG is a proxy for LGBT), only three have laws against homosexuality. This all strikes me as basically meaningless. We receive many more asylum seekers from our own neighborhood, so there is no surprise that most PSG claims come from nearby countries. And while it is interesting that three distant countries (Kenya, Ethiopia, and Guinea) with anti-gay laws produce large numbers of PSG asylees, we have no way of knowing how many of these cases are LGBT; particularly since all three countries have high instances of female genital mutilation, which also falls into the PSG category.

The bottom line for me is that, while the increased number of PSG cases is consistent with an increase in LGBT claims, the statistics don’t really tell us much. But based on the anecdotal evidence and my own experience, it seems clear that more people than before are seeking asylum based on sexual orientation. Whether this constitutes a “surge” in LGBT claims, as the WSJ concludes, is debatable given the lack of data.

Finally, do LGBT claimants have an easier time winning asylum than others?

As the WSJ points out, an LGBT case from Central America is certainly more likely to succeed than the average case from the region. According to the Journal, Immigration Equality’s “success rate for closed cases [is] 98%, roughly quadruple the batting average of the typical asylum-seeker.” (Though I would be curious to know how they define “success” when they came up with this figure). Of course, many cases from Central America are based on gang persecution, which does not easily fit within a protected category for purposes of asylum. Since LGBT asylum seekers fall within a protected category–PSG–it is not surprising that they have a higher success rate than average. I would imagine that other cases where there is an obvious protected ground–like political cases, for example–are also much more likely to succeed than the average case.

Also, as the Journal points out, for LGBT asylum seekers, the likelihood of success is particularly high because country conditions are particularly bad. In our office, we see a decent number of LGBT asylum applicants, and they often have been subject to severe physical and psychological violence. So based on my own experience, the information in the WSJ piece rings true.

In the end, we don’t have the data to make a firm conclusion about how much “easier” it is for LGBT claimants to obtain asylum, but it seems likely that the success rate for such cases is higher than for many other types of cases. Given the threats and violence against gay people around the world, it seems to me that a high asylum grant rate is completely justified.

Continue reading

3 Comments

That Pesky Nexus

by Jason Dzubow

To receive asylum in the United States, an applicant must show not only that he faces persecution in his home country, but that the feared persecution is “on account of” a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion).

GW law students react to Todd and my appointment to the adjunct faculty.
GW law students react to Todd and my appointment to the adjunct faculty.

This means that if MS-13 gang members want to kill you because you refuse to join the gang, you probably won’t qualify for asylum. On the other hand, if the Ethiopian government wants to detain you for a year because you attended an anti-government protest, you probably will qualify. To me, the regime created by the nexus requirement seems incongruous and unjust.

I’ve seen this play out in many of my cases, where we often have to shoehorn our client’s claim into a protected category. For example, Eritreans who flee the National Service (really, a form of never-ending slavery) would not ordinarily receive asylum since the (very serious) harm they face for trying to escape is not generally “on account of” a protected ground. One strategy to help such people obtain asylum is to show that the Eritrean government views them as enemies. In other words, that it imputes to National Service evaders an anti-government political opinion. Sometimes this works; sometimes it doesn’t. But the question is, why do we have an asylum system that forces us to contort legitimate claims so that they fulfill the nexus requirement?

This is essentially one of the questions that my esteemed co-professor Todd Pilcher and I asked our students on their final exam. As an aside, this was the first year that either of us taught a law school course (Asylum and Refugee Law at George Washington University Law School). Even having practiced primarily asylum law for the last 10 years, it was amazing how much I learned by teaching this class. I also learned that it is better not to know what goes on behind the scenes with grading. Suffice it to say that as a mere adjunct professor, we had quite a bit of power to grade as we wished; more power, actually, than we were comfortable with (but on the bright side for our students, despite a killer exam–sorry about that–they did very well).  

But back to the nexus requirement. In theory, it exists because it reflects our values. We care about political expression and the exercise of religion, and so we protect people who face persecution on those grounds. In reality, it exists because some Dead White Men created relatively arbitrary categories that seemed appropriate in the post-WWII world. So–as we asked our students–would we be better off without it?

The students were split in their responses, and obviously reasonable people can differ (though of course we flunked everyone who disagreed with us).

For me, the nexus requirement is an arbitrary way to limit the number of people eligible for asylum. That the nexus requirement has worked so well in this regard is more an accident of geography than anything else. It just so happens that the main reasons people from Mexico and Central America flee their countries are not reasons that easily fulfill the nexus requirement (fear of gangs and cartels). Imagine if we lived next to China, where many refugees face political persecution (or persecution for forced family planning, which is considered political persecution under U.S. asylum law). Or what if we lived next door to Iran or Afghanistan, where people flee due to religious persecution. The nexus requirement would do little to stem the flow of refugees from those places.

So if we eliminated the nexus requirement, how could we keep from being overwhelmed by asylum seekers?

The first question, I suppose, is, Would we be overwhelmed by asylum seekers if we gave asylum to everyone who faces persecution irrespective of nexus? Certainly the number of people eligible would go up. And we have seen that asylum seekers respond to policy changes (witness the surge of credible fear interviews at the U.S.-Mexico border). So it certainly seems possible that the number of asylum seekers would increase, but by how much, no one can say. If I had to guess, I would say that the increase would not be as dramatic as we might imagine. Why? Because asylum seekers who want to come here will come here and try for asylum regardless of the odds. Just because you have a one in ten million chance of winning the lottery does not mean you won’t play. So while I suspect that if the nexus requirement were eliminated, more people would be incentivised to come here, I am not sure how many would actually change their behavior and make the trip.

There are, of course, other ways to limit the number of asylum seekers. One way is to change the level of proof. Instead of a 10% chance of future persecution, how about a 50% chance or a 75% chance. While this would reduce the number of people qualifying for asylum, it would also result in legitimate refugees being returned to countries where they face persecution. Also, given the arguments above, I doubt it would do much to actually reduce the number of people coming here for asylum.

Another option would be to resettle anyone qualifying for asylum to a third country. In other words, if a person wins asylum in the U.S., she will be resettled in Argentina. While this would likely reduce the number of people seeking asylum here, I doubt whether many other countries would agree to such a scheme. Also, I imagine there would have to be some sort of reciprocity, so if people were granted asylum in Greece, for example, they might be resettled here. While this plan eliminates some of the incentive for seeking asylum in the U.S., I just don’t see how it could work in the real world.

In the end, the nexus requirement is not going away anytime soon. I do think it is helpful and important to recognize, however, that the requirement really is quite arbitrary. It would do far less to limit the number of asylum seekers if we lived in a different part of the world or if conditions in our neighborhood changed. But for the foreseeable future, we lawyers will continue looking for ways to fit our clients’ cases into one of the protected categories.

Continue reading

5 Comments

Where Cato Gets It Wrong on Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

The Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh recently published a piece in the Huffington Post called Saving the Asylum System. The title accurately reflects the author’s point, and of course I agree that our asylum system should be preserved (and–really–cherished). But where Mr. Nowrasteh gets it wrong, I think, is his analysis of the problem.

Recipe for a refugee: Take one economic migrant, add persecutors, mix thoroughly.
Recipe for a refugee: Take one economic migrant, add persecutors, mix thoroughly.

The “fundamental problem” according to Mr. Nowrasteh is that intending economic migrants who arrive illegally at the border and get caught are requesting asylum as a way of gaining entry into the U.S. to work. He views this as an “unintended consequence of severe restrictions that make it exceedingly difficult for lower-skilled immigrants to enter the country legally.” He posits that “creating a low-skilled guest worker visa program to channel would-be unauthorized immigrants into the legal system [would remove] the incentive for some of them to make dubious asylum claims.”

Cato is a Libertarian think tank, and Mr. Nowrasteh’s proposal is a Libertarian solution (free flow of labor and all that).

Before I respond, I must admit to a certain prejudice against Libertarianism in general. To use a fancy law school word, I find the whole philosophy jejune. It seems perfectly fine for high school juniors with Ayn Rand fantasies, but I feel it fails utterly in the real world. In other words, to me, “Libertarian think tank” is an oxymoron. On the other hand, I have some good friends who are staunch Libertarians, and sometimes they even give me free cigars (though I suppose this must be in exchange for some utility they get from my company–or maybe they just hope I die from lung cancer). So perhaps I am being a bit too harsh. Anyway, the point is, it’s only fair to put my prejudice on the table before I respond.

That said, I think that Mr. Nowrasteh is simply wrong that most–or even a significant portion–of asylum seekers are economic migrants. To be sure, asylum seekers come to the U.S. (as opposed to Namibia, for example) because they can settle here, get  a job, and build a new life. But this does not make them economic migrants in the normal sense of the phrase. Economic migrants are not fleeing their country because their life or freedom is threatened; they are leaving for a better job.

Stated another way, with all immigrants (including asylum seekers) there is a push and a pull. For refugees, the most important “push” factor is a threat to life or freedom in the home country. For economic migrants, the push is a bad economic situation. The pull for both groups is freedom, opportunity, peace, the ability to gain acceptance, and all the other tangibles and intangibles of “America.”

So why do I think that most asylum seekers are not economic migrants who file fraudulent asylum claims in order to circumvent immigration restrictions?

The main reason, I must admit, is anecdotal. I have represented hundreds of asylum seekers, and while I have suspicions about the motivations of some clients, most clearly face threats in their home countries. Also, many of my clients held good jobs in their home countries and they are unlikely to achieve the same level of success in the United States (due to language barriers, lack of transferable skills, etc.).

Another reason I believe that asylum seekers are not mere economic migrants is because countries that produce large numbers of asylum seekers have widespread human rights problems. The source country for the most asylum seekers in the U.S. is–by far–China. Of late, China has produced between 20 and 25% of affirmative asylum cases and a whopping 45% of defensive asylum grants in FY2013. China has a repressive government and–probably more importantly for purposes of this discussion–Congress passed a law to provide asylum to victims of forced family planning, and these people come almost exclusively from China. While the U.S. economy provides more opportunities than China’s, the repressive nature of the government combined with a special law to help Chinese asylum seekers suggests that asylum applicants from China are more than just economic migrants–they are refugees.

A possible counter argument here is that the increase in credible fear applicants, who have lately been overwhelming the asylum system, comes from people arriving from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, which all have very low asylum grant rates. There are two reasons why I think this argument fails, however. First, many people seeking asylum from these countries face severe threats and persecution from gangs and cartels, or from crime and domestic violence. Such people are genuinely afraid (for good reason), but they rarely qualify for asylum since they cannot show that the feared harm is “on account of” a protected ground. Second, all these countries are very violent places. The less violent countries in the region–Belize, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Panama–have weak economies compared to the U.S. (especially mi país Nicaragua, which is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere aside from Haiti). If Mr. Nowrasteh’s theory is correct, we would expect these countries to be sending us comparable numbers of (fraudulent) asylum seekers, but they are not. To me, all this supports the notion that people leaving the region and seeking asylum in the U.S. are driven more by a fear of harm than by the desire for a better job.

So in the end, while I am happy that the Cato Institute is thinking creatively about ways to preserve our asylum system, I am not convinced by their analysis. While a guest worker program (especially for Mexico and Central America) might marginally reduce the number of asylum seekers, the overlap between refugees and economic migrants is pretty minimal. If we want to reduce the number of asylum seekers at our Southern border, we should spend more time supporting good governance in the region and less time meddling in our neighbors’ affairs.

Continue reading

4 Comments

Amendments to the Terrorism Bar–or–How Fox News Enables the Holocaust

by Jason Dzubow

I’ve created a new invention. It’s called the “No-Hypocrisy Time Machine.” It enables us to travel back into the past to apply today’s laws and policies to historical events so we can see what impact they would have. In the process, we might just uncover some inconsistent or–dare I say it–hypocritical thinking. 

Before we begin our journey, let’s look at the laws and policies that we will be sending back in time. 

Barred from asylum: A Jewish boy provides "material support" to the Nazis.
Barred from asylum: A Jewish boy provides “material support” to the Nazis.

After the 9-11 attack, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act (2001) and the REAL ID Act (2005). Both laws strengthened and expanded terrorism bars contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The “terrorism bars” were designed to prevent terrorists and their supporters from obtaining immigration benefits in the United States. The problem was that these laws were over-broad. So even a person who was coerced into providing minimal support to a terrorist–for example, giving a glass of water to a guerrilla fighter on pain of death–might be barred from receiving asylum in the U.S.

Indeed, even the Bush Administration recognized that the terrorism bars were over-broad, and in 2007, DHS established some exceptions for coercion.

Fast forward to February 2014. The Obama Administration issued regulations exempting an alien from the terrorism bar where the alien provided limited material support–such as engaging in a commercial transaction,providing humanitarian assistance or acting under duress–to a terrorist organization. Importantly, the exception to the terrorism bar does not apply unless the alien has (1) passed all security background checks; (2) explained the circumstances that led to the provision of material support; (3) “has not provided the material support with any intent or desire to assist any terrorist organization or terrorist activity;” (4) has not provided support that the alien knew or reasonably should have known could be used to engage in terrorist or violent activity, or to target non-combatants; (5) poses no danger to the United States; and (6) warrants an exemption under the totality of the circumstances. One DHS official offered some examples of how the change might help otherwise innocent refugees: a restaurant owner who served food to an opposition group; a farmer who paid a toll to such a group in order to cross a bridge or sell his food; or a Syrian refugee who paid an opposition group to get out of the country.

Conservative commentators have characterized the exemptions differently. One wrote: “If you’re only sort of a terrorist, you can come to the US.” Fox News opined that the “Obama administration has unilaterally eased restrictions on asylum seekers with loose or incidental ties to terror and insurgent groups.” I suppose this isn’t much of a surprise since it is the business of Fox News and similar outlets to take the most mundane events, extrapolate them to the Nth degree, and then work themselves (and their viewers) into an outraged fury.

But how does Fox News’s position play out when we place it into our No-Hypocrisy Time Machine? Let’s travel back in time to World War II and the Holocaust to see what happens when today’s laws are applied to those dark times. Without the rule change, who might be barred from asylum in the United States–and thus deported into the hands of the Nazis?

The Schindler’s List Jews – These Jews–men, women, and children–would be barred from asylum for working in Oskar Schindler’s factory, which made cookware for the German Army. Deport them all. And by the way, that goes double for Mr. Schindler himself, who owned the factory and thus directly support the Wehrmacht.

Eli Wiesel – The Nobel Peace Prize winner worked for the Nazis in a slave labor camp. His labor would certainly constitute “material support.” His request for asylum is denied.

Tom Lantos – The California Congressman and human rights advocate spent time in a Nazi labor camp. Barred.

Simon Wiesenthal – The famed Nazi hunter was in Poland during the German invasion. He bribed an official to avoid deportation, registered to do forced labor, and later worked repairing railways. Barred, barred, and barred.

In fact, I’d guess that many–if not most–Jews (and others) who survived the Holocaust had to pay bribes, engage in forced labor or give other “material support” to the Nazis. So why does Fox News support policies that would bar these people from safety in the United States?

Obviously Fox News does not hate Holocaust survivors or Jews. But they do seem to hate the President, and to oppose anything his Administration does, even when his policies make perfect sense. Just as it would have been wrong to deny asylum to Eli Wiesel, Tom Lantos, and the others, it is wrong to deny asylum to innocent people who “supported” terrorist because they were coerced, they were unknowing or they had no choice. Modifying the rules related to the terrorism bar was the right thing to do. The claims to the contrary are–at best–inconsistent with universally-held values like protecting victims of fascism and terrorism. At worst, those claims are hypocrisy, pure and simple.

Continue reading

9 Comments

Hurry Up and Lose My Case

by Jason Dzubow

If you asked my clients their number one complaint about me, it’s that they think I take too long to prepare and file their affirmative asylum cases. Conversely, if you asked me my number one complaint about my clients, it’s that they are always pushing me to file their cases as quickly as possible. Since this blog is written by me, and not by my clients, I can tell you unequivocally that I am right and they are wrong. Here’s why–

Going fast does not always get you the result you want.
Going fast does not always get you the result you want.

First and foremost, it takes time to properly prepare and file an asylum case. Even in a very strong case–and especially in a case with a lot of evidence–it is important to make sure that all the letters and documents are consistent. That translations are correct. That dates, which often use a different calendar, are properly converted to the Western calendar. That the dates in the asylum form match the dates in the affidavit, and that passports, visas, and other documents make sense with the client’s chronology as she remembers it. You would be surprised how often there are problems with dates, chronologies, and translations. In fact, it is the rare case that does not involve my staff or me finding major mistakes in the documents. While this is usually the result of carelessness on the part of the client or a witness, such errors can be fatal to an asylum case, where inconsistencies are often seen as evidence of fraud. There is simply no way around it, it takes time to review all this and put together a consistent and well-crafted application.

Second, any asylum attorney who is any good will probably be busy, especially if his prices are reasonable. Indeed, the only way to keep prices reasonable is to do these cases in bulk. Therefore, if you expect to pay a reasonable price for your case, you can probably expect to wait a bit to have it filed. In our office, it typically takes one to two months to prepare and file an affirmative asylum case. Although the cases do not need to be completely finished when we file (because we can submit supplemental material a week prior to the interview), they need to be mostly done. Why? Because the timing of interviews is unpredictable. The interview may not occur for two months (or more) after we file the application, but it might occur in four weeks. So if the case is not near completion at the time we file, we may not have time to properly finish it and review everything before the interview.

Finally, attorneys–you may be shocked to learn–are human. And humans make mistakes. When we rush, we tend to make more mistakes, and mistakes sometimes cause clients to lose their cases. When we have time to prepare a case, think about the facts and the law, strategize about how to resolve problems (and most cases have problems of one sort or another), research country conditions, and carefully review all the evidence, we minimize the chances for mistakes and maximize the odds of winning.

There are, of course, very legitimate reasons for wanting to file a case quickly–separation from family, stress, uncertainty, fear of being out of status, inability to work. Probably the most legitimate reason to file quickly is to meet the one-year asylum filing deadline (asylum applicants are required to file for asylum within one year of arrival in the United States; people who file after one year risk being ineligible for asylum). But as long as there is not a one-year issue, it is far better to take a few extra weeks to file a case correctly than to rush. In my humble (and correct) opinion, if you prioritize speed over winning, you are misplacing your priorities. If you lose your case, it will likely be referred to an Immigration Judge, which can easily take several years to resolve.

So take a breath. Relax. And take the time to do your case right. Going a bit slower at the beginning may save you a lot of time in the end.

Continue reading

8 Comments

Don’t, Until You Do!

by Jason Dzubow

DD is a former client who is now my intern. She was granted Withholding of Removal about a year ago. The Immigration Judge in her case denied asylum because DD had failed to file her application within one year of arriving in the U.S. For many reasons, Withholding is not as good as asylum–you never get a green card or become a U.S. citizen; you cannot travel outside the country; you need to renew your work permit every year; some aliens with Withholding are required to report again and again to DHS to be “monitored.” While my client was grateful that she was not deported, she was not (and is not) thrilled with the restrictions of Withholding of Removal. She wrote a poem about her impression of the asylum experience in the United States–

Don’t talk to me about immigration until you have walked a mile in my shoes on the long road in search of freedom in a foreign land, leaving everything behind to start from the beginning. 

Don’t declare to know what is best for immigrants (legal or illegal) until you have fought this web of a system.

Don’t tell me I stole your job, for you will never agree to clean toilets for $5.00 an hour in order to feed your family.  Besides, how can I steal the job you have hired me to do?  Are you not my employer, taking advantage of my desperate situation for your own gain?

Don’t tell me I am stealing your child’s right to good education; for knowledge can never be taken from an individual who has acquired it.

Don’t force me to learn English, because unlike you, English will be my 4th language. 

Don’t immigrant hate until you can prove your ancestors originated from this land like the Native Americans (Remember them?  The non-immigrants and the one true Americans).

If you ask me to go back to the land from whence I came, I will ask you to find your way first. 

If you tell me that this land is your land, I will ask you how did you acquire it… with blood or gold?

And finally, don’t tell me I broke the law, when instead it’s the law that has broken me.

Originally from Liberia, DD grew up on three continents in five different countries (Liberia, Egypt, Syria, Ghana, and the United States). She speaks English and is proficient in American Sign Language and French. In 2004, she obtained her BA Degree in Criminal Justice, French, and Psychology. She has worked in the field of mental health and career counseling since graduating from college.

Continue reading

5 Comments

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

BIA Defies Ninth Circuit: IJs Lack Jurisdiction to Review Asylum Termination

by Jason Dzubow

Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit held that DHS does not have the authority to terminate an alien’s asylum status (I wrote about this here).  The Court reasoned that although the regulations allow for DHS to terminate asylum, the statute (upon which the regulations are based) grants authority to terminate exclusively to the Attorney General (and through him to the Immigration Judges).  Now the BIA has weighed in, and they have reached the opposite conclusion–the Board held that DHS has the authority to terminate asylum, and that the IJ has no authority to review the termination. See Matter of A-S-J-, 25 I&N Dec. 893 (BIA 2012).

A BIA Board Member addresses the Ninth Circuit.

First, it strikes me as a strange coincidence that the Ninth Circuit ruled on asylum termination a few weeks ago and now the BIA is publishing a decision on the same issue.  The BIA publishes only about 40 decisions per year, and so it seems odd that they would publish a decision on this same issue at the same time as the Ninth Circuit.  Call me paranoid, but I feel like we should contact Oliver Stone about this one (though perhaps the more prosaic explanation is that the BIA knew about the Ninth Circuit case and was waiting for a decision there before it issued its own decision on the matter).

In essence, the Board held that under the applicable regulations, both the IJ and DHS have authority to terminate asylum in certain circumstances.  However, these are two independent tracks.  According to the BIA, the regulations do not give the IJ authority to review an asylum termination by DHS.

The Board framed the issue as follows: “[W]hether an Immigration Judge has jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.24(f) to review the DHS’s termination of an alien’s asylum status pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(a).”  The Board drew a bright-line distinction between the regulations in section 1208 (which the Board held are for EOIR) and the regulations in section 208 (for DHS).  The BIA concludes that

[T]he regulations for termination of asylum status provide for either (1) USCIS adjudication, with the possibility of the alien asserting a subsequent claim for asylum before the Immigration Judge in removal proceedings or (2) Immigration Judge jurisdiction to conduct an asylum termination hearing or to reopen the proceedings for the DHS to pursue termination of asylum status.  The regulations do not confer jurisdiction on the Immigration Judge to review a DHS termination of an asylum grant under 8 C.F.R. 208.24(a).

What this means is that although the IJ does not have the authority to review termination of asylum by DHS, the alien may re-apply for asylum anew before the Judge.  The IJ does not have to accept the determination by DHS concerning termination.  Rather, the IJ makes a de novo determination about the alien’s eligibility for asylum.  So although A-S-J- may make it more difficult for the alien, it does not close the door to relief once DHS terminates asylum.

The dissenting Board Member points out that section 208 of the regulations discusses the IJ’s authority to terminate asylum, and so “it is logical to infer that he also has the authority to restore asylum status terminated by the DHS.”  Although this would make sense from a practical point of view–it would be more efficient to allow the IJ to review a DHS termination rather than force the alien to re-apply for asylum in Immigration Court–I am not so sure that it is “logical to infer” that the IJ has the power to review a DHS termination, particularly given that in other instances, the regulations specifically grant such authority to the IJ.

Given the decision in the Ninth Circuit, I imagine the respondent in A-S-J- will file a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (or maybe a request for rehearing en banc before the BIA).  Although asylum termination is fairly uncommon (as far as I can tell), the issues of who has the authority to terminate a grant of asylum and how that decision is reviewed are important.  I expect we will see much litigation about these issues over the next few years.

Continue reading

Citing the Beatles, Ninth Circuit Determines that Only the Attorney General Can Terminate Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

A few days before Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit ruled that only the Attorney General–not DHS–can terminate asylum.  In Nijjar v. Holder, No. 07-74054 (9th Cir. 2012), the Department of Homeland Security, through the Asylum Office, terminated Gurjeet Singh Nijjar’s asylum approval In Spite of All the Danger in his country. 

Mr. Nijjar received asylum in 1995, based on political persecution he claimed to have suffered in India.  Before he left India, he was advised to Run for Your Life.

The Beatles: Great music AND binding precedent.

In 2003, DHS notified Mr. Nijjar that it intended to terminate his asylum status for fraud and order him to Get Back to India.  DHS wrote that it had information indicating that Mr. Nijjar was in the United States at the time he claimed to have been Across the Universe being persecuted in India and that Every Little Thing about his case was false.  The DHS letter instructed Mr. Nijjar to Come Together for a termination interview with an asylum officer to see whether We Can Work It Out or whether they would tell him, Hello, Goodbye.  However, Mr. Nijjar was a Nowhere Man and failed to appear.  After he failed to Help himself, DHS terminated his asylum status and referred his case to Immigration Court.

After a Long and Winding Road, the IJ (a Woman) concluded that she did not have jurisdiction to review the termination and gave Mr. Nijjar a Ticket to Ride to India.  After She Said She Said he is deported, the BIA Let It Be.  Mr. Nijjar then filed a petition for review with the Ninth Circuit Like Dreamers Do.  There, he asked the Court to Please Please Me.

On review, three Ninth Circuit judges noted All Together Now that the regulations, 8 C.F.R. § 208, provide as follows–

[An] asylum officer [of the DHS] may terminate a grant of asylum . . . if following an interview, the asylum officer determines that… There is a showing of fraud in the alien’s application such that he or she was not eligible for asylum at the time it was granted.

The problem, however, is that the statute (the INA) does not give DHS the authority to issue such regulations–

Congress [a/k/a The Fools on the Hill] did not confer the authority to terminate asylum on the Department of Homeland Security. Congress conferred that authority exclusively on the Department of Justice.

Congress expressly provided that “the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum . . . .” But the subsection governing termination of asylum is not parallel, and does not say that either cabinet department may terminate asylum. The “termination of asylum” subsection of the statute says that asylum “may be terminated if the Attorney General determines” that any of several conditions are met.

The Government attorney countered that Because the Asylum Office had the power to grant asylum, it must also have the power to take asylum away Any Time at All.  The Court called this argument “euphonious but not logical,” and held that popular songs are full of euphonious lyrics that make false statements, such as the Beatles’ lyrics:

There’s nothing you can know that isn’t known,
Nothing you can see that isn’t shown,
Nowhere you can be that isn’t where you’re meant
to be…

In other words, don’t Ask Me Why, but “there is no general principle that what one can do, one can undo.”  Because the statute specifically gives DHS and DOJ the power to grant asylum, but only DOJ the power to terminate asylum, the Court concluded that only the Attorney General can terminate asylum.  The regulations allowing DHS (through the Asylum Office) to terminate asylum are invalid.

I Want to Tell You, the Ninth Circuit’s logic seems sound.  I Imagine that unless Congress changes Something in the statute, future asylum terminations by the Asylum Office will face strong challenges from asylees Here, There and Everywhere.  Rather than waste resources litigating this issue Helter Skelter every time the government seeks to terminate, I’m Down with the regulations being amended to reflect the statute–only DOJ has the power to terminate an asylum grant.  In the future, when DHS wants to declare The End of an alien’s asylum status, it will need to issue a Notice to Appear, and then allow the IJ to make the initial decision concerning termination.  Dig It?

Continue reading

3 Comments

The Asylum Affidavit, Part 1: The Passive Tense Should Not Be Used

by Jason Dzubow

The heart of an asylum case is the applicant’s affidavit.  There, she tells her story and explains why she needs the protection of asylum.  Because affidavits are so important, I thought it might be helpful to do a short series about preparing a decent affidavit.

One of the most common problems in affidavits is the overuse of the passive voice.  Not to be all English teacher-y, but I’ve seen too many affidavits where I have no idea who is doing what to whom, and one reason for this confusion is the use of passive voice.  I imagine that if an affidavit is confusing for me as an attorney reviewing the case, it is quite possibly fatal to the applicant’s chances for success with an Asylum Officer or an Immigration Judge.

Of course, most asylum seekers are not native English speakers, and the overuse of passive voice stems as much from linguistic and cultural differences as it does from poor English grammar.  The problem is not confined to pro se applicants, however, but extends to cases prepared by notarios and attorneys as well—people who should know better.

Here is a made-up, but close-to-real-life example of an affidavit written in the passive voice:

On June 10, 2005, I was arrested at my house.  I was taken to the police detention center.  There, I was interrogated and beaten.

For her opposition to passive voice, Dorothy Parker was honored by the Postal Service.

If I have inherited this case (perhaps because the applicant was referred to Court by the Asylum Office), each of these sentences is more annoying than the last.  I want to know who arrested the applicant and whether anyone witnessed the arrest.  Also, who took the applicant to the detention center?  How did he get there? Who interrogated the applicant?  How many times was he interrogated?  Who beat him?  How many times was the applicant beaten?  What injuries did he sustain?  Did he say anything during the beating?  Did the interrogator(s) say anything?  Here is an (abbreviated) example of how the above statement might be re-written:

On June 10, 2005, three soldiers came to my house.  My father answered the door.  The leader of the group ordered my father to bring me to the door.  When I came to the door, the soldiers handcuffed me and drove me to the Central Police Station.  At the station, they put me in a holding cell with ten other prisoners.  After an hour, a guard brought me to a small office.  There were two soldiers standing in the room and a security agent sitting at a desk.  The agent ordered me to sit down.  He asked me why I participated in an opposition demonstration.  When I denied that I participated in any demonstration, he slapped me hard across my face.  My nose was bleeding.

You get the idea.  By reducing or eliminating passive voice from the passage, we have a much better idea about what happened.  I also added more detail, something that I will discuss in a future post.

The problem with passive voice is that it makes it more difficult to understand what is happening in the story.  If the fact finder cannot understand what is happening, he cannot compare the applicant’s testimony to her written affidavit.  Comparing the written and oral statements is one method for determining credibility.  Therefore, overuse of passive voice makes credibility determinations more difficult, and makes it more likely your client’s case will be denied.  Thus, in the words of Dorothy Parker, “The passive tense should not be used.”

Continue reading

2 Comments

Asylum and Shari’ah Law

by Jason Dzubow

I recently finished a book about the Quran, and it got me wondering about what Islamic Law (or Shari’ah) has to say about asylum. 

Forget the Asylum Primer…

With the help of the mighty Google, I found an interesting paper on the subject from 2009: The Right to Asylum between Islamic Shari’ah and International Refugee Law: A Comparative Study.  The study is by Prof. Ahmed Abou-El-Wafa, chief of the department of public international law at Cairo University, and was written for the United Nations.  The study was meant to begin a conversation and get feedback from various experts in preparation for publishing the second edition of the study.  This conversation is apparently on-going.

Obviously, I am no expert in Shari’ah law, but I reviewed the initial study and I thought I would mention a few highlights.  The document begins with a quote from the Quran:

Those who believed and emigrated, and strove in the cause of God, as well as those who hosted them and gave them refuge, and supported them, these are the true believers.  They have deserved forgiveness and a generous recompense. (Quranic Surat al-Anfal, “The Spoils of War” [Chapter 8 verse 74]).

Try the Quran instead.

From there, the study sets forth the conditions for granting asylum under Islamic law.  For one thing, refugees should be “warmly welcomed… and well treated.”  “This is clear from the divine phrase [in the Quran that] those who ‘show their affection to such as came to them for refuge…’ and consequently [they] should not be expelled to the borders (refouled) or denied admission.”  Indeed, asylum seekers “should not be rejected , even if the inhabitants of the territory of asylum are in dire poverty… as the [Quran] says, ‘… even though poverty was their (own lot).'”  The study further states that “Islam categorically disallows that a refugee be returned to a place where there are fears for his basic freedoms and rights (such as being subjected to persecution, torture, degrading or other treatment).” 

Most of the examples in the study involve granting asylum to Muslims, but the law of asylum also extends to non-Muslims who are seeking protection.  This is based on a “well-known Islamic principle, i.e. ‘Before the world’s calamities, all sons of Adam (human beings) are equal.'”

The study also discusses the case of a person who enters Muslim territory without permission for the purpose of seeking asylum.  While non-Muslims are generally not permitted to enter Muslim lands without permission (and may be severely punished if they do), people who enter for the purpose of seeking asylum are not subject to penalties and should be offered protection. 

Interestingly, as in international law, Islamic law lists certain people who are ineligible for asylum.  One group that is not eligible are criminals, “particularly those who have committed acts warranting prescribed penalties (hodoud, e.g. willful murder).”  Also, people who have committed “grievances” in their home country are ineligible.  Here, Islamic law distinguishes between offering asylum and sheltering offenders.  The latter is not allowed.  Further, a grant of asylum to a specific person “may be coupled with an agreement concluded with him.”  Failure to abide by the agreement can have “grave consequences.”

The report concludes that “Observance of this right [to asylum] as enshrined by Islam is a duty for every zealous Muslim.”

While the concept of asylum exists under Shari’ah law, many Islamic countries, including the wealthy Gulf states, have not signed on to international treaties concerning refugees and do not offer asylum to people fleeing persecution.  I hope Professor Ahmed’s study reaches those Islamic governments that do not offer protection to refugees.  Not only do such governments fail to fulfill the duties incumbent upon all nations; it seems they also fail to fulfill their obligations under Islamic law. 

Continue reading

7 Comments

To Brief or Not to Brief

by Jason Dzubow

It seems that every lawyer who represents asylum seekers has their own style of preparing cases.  Not surprisingly, each person thinks his way is the best (of course, they are all wrong, since my way is best).

One big divide I’ve noticed is between lawyers who submit legal briefs with their cases and those who don’t.  Whether due to increased efficiency or increased laziness, I am one of the lawyers who generally does not submit a brief with my cases.

When I first started doing asylum cases, I submitted briefs.  I felt it was necessary to set forth the law and the facts of my case, and to show why my client qualified for asylum.  As time went on, I ended that practice.  Now, I only include briefs if there is a sui generis (to use a fancy law school term) issue that deserves elucidation or if there are criminal or persecutor issues in the case.

The way I see it, there are advantages and disadvantages to including briefs with run-of-the-mill cases.

One advantage is that a brief helps the lawyer organize her thoughts.  It also forces the lawyer to specifically set forth the basis for the claim and might help exposes weaknesses that can be addressed prior to submitting the case.  Briefs are also helpful for cases involving “particular social groups,” where the brief can clearly define the social group.  Further, since lawyers should always be thinking one or two steps ahead, a brief creates a road map for appeal.  When Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers see that an applicant is well-prepared to continue litigating his case, they may be more likely to grant relief.  In addition, for new lawyers or lawyers who don’t normally represent asylum seekers, a brief can be particularly helpful for the lawyer to understand the law and how the facts of the case meet the legal requirements.

There are also disadvantages to writing briefs.  The main disadvantage is that writing a brief is time consuming.  Lawyers have limited time to prepare cases and we need to be efficient.  Time spent preparing a brief might better be used for gathering evidence, doing country condition research or preparing witnesses for trial.  My sense is that IJs and Trial Attorneys often do not read legal briefs, except if there is a legal issue that concerns them.  They already know the law, and they will gain a better understanding of the facts by reading the applicant’s story and reviewing the evidence.  Again, it is a question of efficiency–Asylum Officers and IJs have limited time to review cases, and they need to use their time wisely.

Also, for normal cases, where the law is not in dispute, a brief can be a distraction.  Conscientious fact-finders will often feel obliged to read everything submitted with an asylum application.  A brief that spends three pages “educating” the fact-finder about the law of asylum might be seen as condescending and does not provide information that will help the client.

Instead of a brief, I like to write a paragraph (or maybe two) explaining the basis of the claim.  If there is a particular social group, I define what that is.  I also include a detailed summary of the client’s affidavit and each piece of evidence.  To me, this is more useful to the IJ than a brief because she can read the summary and gain a good understanding of the case.

All that said, there of course is no “right way” to present an asylum case.  Each lawyer must decide what is best for herself and her client.

Continue reading

4 Comments

Some (Unsolicited) Advice for the Anti-Refugee Crowd

by Jason Dzubow

It’s easy to find anti-immigration websites and blogs on the internet, but there really aren’t many websites devoted exclusively to opposing refugees and asylum seekers in the U.S.  Of course, many of the anti-immigration websites periodically discuss these issues, but this is not the same as a restrictionist website focusing on asylum. 

The only blog I’ve found that is devoted exclusively to these issues is Refugee Resettlement Watch, which (as the name implies) was founded to highlight problems in the U.S. refugee resettlement program.  RRW advocates for fewer refugees and better oversight of the resettlement program.  It also opposes bringing in “Muslim refugees, Somalis in particular, who have no intention of becoming Americans.”  The blog authors add a note for those who might think the website racist:

Some of you reading this have for way too long intimidated and silenced people you disagree with by calling them racists, xenophobes, hatemongers and on and on and on.  It doesn’t work here, in fact, when you start with that sort of attack and don’t address the issues we raise, it validates our work.

The bloggers for RRW are very active, and post several articles each day.  They also attract a fair bit of attention–according to their website statistics, the site has received almost 1.2 million hits.

Although I obviously disagree with the main goal of RRW, I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with advocating for the reduction or elimination of our refugee and/or asylum programs.  Indeed, I can think of a number of legitimate arguments supporting such a move: Our money would be more effectively spent helping refugees overseas; these programs are too costly given our current economic woes; refugees integrate too slowly–or not at all–into our communities; we should only help refugees who are “culturally compatible” with our society.  I won’t address these arguments here.  Instead, I want to talk about RRW (in other words, it’s time for the unsolicited advice).

"Why are people always dis-ing Ishtar?"

First, RRW would be more effective if it was less partisan.  The blog is not even close to neutral in its approach; it reports almost exclusively negative news about refugees.  If a refugee jaywalks in Cincinnati, RRW will cover it.  But if a refugee saves 10 children from a burning school bus, you won’t hear about it on RRW.  Perhaps the point is to destroy the myth of refugees as innocent victims and replace it with a more sinister image.  While this type of advocacy might do well with the already converted, it is unlikely to change many people’s minds.  So my advice to RRW is, try to be a bit more subtle.  If you want to convince me that Dustin Hoffman is a crummy actor, you can’t only talk to me about Ishtar.  You have to address The Graduate and (G-d forbid) Meet the Fockers.  My point being, unless RRW acknowledges in a meaningful way the positive aspects of the refugee and asylum programs, it will not have much legitimacy to address the negative aspects.   

Second, while I am willing to  accept RRW’s claim that it is not racist or xenophobic, it certainly provides a safe space for racists, xenophobes, and hatemongers.  A quick purview of the comments (and RRW’s responses) demonstrates this pretty clearly.  Even the Center for Immigration Studies–a well known restrictionist group that has itself been (unjustly in my opinion) called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center–keeps a safe distance from RRW.  So my advice is, don’t allow hateful and racist comments to go unchallenged.  When you actually demonstrate that you oppose racism and xenophobia, instead of just saying it on your “about us” page, people will take you more seriously.

Finally, many of the articles on RRW take a contemptuous tone towards refugees and advocates for refugees.  While these repeated–and often nasty–comments might be viscerally appealing to people who oppose (or hate) refugees, they are a big turn off to the unconverted.  My advice: Have a sense of humor and give people the benefit of the doubt, at least once in a while.  Everyone who advocates for refugees is not a self-serving, crypto-jihadist, and many refugees are simply ordinary people fleeing terrible circumstances.  A more respectful tone towards such people might actually win you some converts.

Of course, I don’t expect RRW to listen to my advice (does anyone listen to advice these days anyway?). Perhaps they are satisfied speaking to a like-minded audience and avoiding honest debate with their political opponents.  To engage in a real discussion with people who have different views requires listening, humility, patience, and courage.  I know from personal experience that it is not always easy to engage in such discussions.  But that is how we learn and grow, and it is how we get closer to the truth.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Albanian Informant and His Family Granted Asylum – Finally

by Jason Dzubow

A decade ago, Edmond Demiraj agreed to testify against an Albanian mobster charged with human smuggling.  He claimed that, in exchange for his testimony, federal prosecutors promised to keep him and his family safe.  The mobster, Bill Bedini, fled the country before his trial, and so the federal government had no need for Mr. Demiraj’s testimony.  He was deported to Albania.

The Fifth Circuit decision means that if JR gets shot, the Ewings don't get asylum.

In Albania, Mr. Bedini was waiting.  He kidnapped, beat, and shot Mr. Demiraj, who eventually recovered and made his way back to the U.S.  This time, he was granted Withholding of Removal.

Meanwhile, an Immigration Judge and the BIA denied asylum to Mr. Demiraj’s wife and son, and ordered them deported.  The pair reopened their case after Mr. Demiraj was shot in Albania and after Mr. Bedini kidnapped some other relatives and trafficked them to Italy.  The wife and son claimed that if they returned to Albania, Mr. Bedini would harm them on account of their particular social group–membership in the Demiraj family.  The case was again denied and finally reached the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the BIA and ordered Mrs. Demiraj and her son deported to Albania.

While the Fifth Circuit agreed that “family” could constitute a “particular social group,” it reasoned that Mr. Bedini did not seek to harm Mrs. Demiraj and her son “on account of” her membership in the Demiraj family.  Rather, Mr. Bedini wanted to harm her and her son in retaliation for Mr. Demiraj’s cooperation with the United States government:

The crucial finding here is that the record discloses no evidence that Mrs. Demiraj would be targeted for her membership in the Demiraj family as such. Rather, the evidence strongly suggests that Mrs. Demiraj, her son, and Mr. Demiraj’s nieces [who were trafficked to Italy] were targeted because they are people who are important to Mr. Demiraj—that is, because hurting them would hurt Mr. Demiraj. No one suggests that distant members of the Demiraj family have been systematically targeted as would be the case if, for example, a persecutor sought to terminate a line of dynastic succession.  Nor does the record suggest that the fact of Mr. and Mrs. Demiraj’s marriage and formal inclusion in the Demiraj family matters to Bedini; that is, Mrs. Demiraj would not be any safer in Albania if she divorced Mr. Demiraj and renounced membership in the family, nor would she be any safer if she were Mr. Demiraj’s girlfriend of many years rather than his wife. The record here discloses a quintessentially personal motivation, not one based on a prohibited reason under the INA.

Mrs. Demiraj and her son filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.  They were supported by a number of amicus briefs, including one by former law enforcement officials.  That brief takes the position that Mr. Demiraj’s family members are a “particular social group” and that they will be persecuted because Mr. Bedini seeks to harm all members of Mr. Demiraj’s family.  Further, the brief expresses concern that “civilians very likely will not cooperate [with law enforcement officers] when they fear that doing so would put their families in danger.”  The Fifth Circuit’s decision would obviously discourage such cooperation.

In the end, the petition for certiorari was withdrawn.  DOJ–after requesting 10 continuances to respond to the cert petition–finally agreed to grant asylum to Mr. Demiraj and his family.  The result is certainly a relief to the Demiraj family.  But the bad news is that the Fifth Circuit’s exceedingly narrow definition of “family” as a “particular social group” remains on the books. 

Congratulations to Joshua Rosenkranz of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, who represented the Demiraj family.

Continue reading