Remembering Algeria’s Jewish Refugees – 50 Years Later

This June marks the 50th anniversary of the Evian Accord, the agreement recognizing Algeria’s independence from France.  Since Roman times, Algeria was home to a large Jewish community.  During the French colonial period, Jews were granted French citizenship.  After independence, however, Algeria denied citizenship to its Jewish population and most of the country’s 140,000 Jews left for France. By 2004, there were less than 100 Jews remaining in Algeria, and most of those fled during the civil war (1991-2002) when the Armed Islamic Group threatened to exterminate them.

Ghardaia

I had an opportunity to visit Algeria in 2001.  I traveled with an Ibadite Muslim friend who is from the M’Zab Valley, an oasis in the Sahara, about 500 km south of Algiers.  The principal city of the M’Zab Valley is Ghardaia, which a French philosopher described as a “Cubist painting beautifully constructed” (maybe I am a bit more pedantic, but to me it looks like the video game Q*bert).  There, I visited an old abandoned synagogue and the Jewish graveyard.  As we are approaching the 50th anniversary of the Evian Accord, I thought I would share some photos and facts about the Jewish community of Ghardaia.

As best as we know, Jews arrived in Ghardaia in two waves.  The city’s original Jews arrived in the 13th or 14th century, a few hundred years after the town was founded.  The Jews were invited to the M’Zab to work as jewelers and smiths, professions traditionally avoided by the local Muslims.  Legend tells of four families who came to the desert town from Djerba, an island off the coast of Tunisia.  The Jews of Djerba trace their lineage back to Biblical times.

The second group arrived in the late 15th century.  At the time, an extremist Muslim movement (possibly fueled by the failure of Islam in Spain) attacked and expelled Jewish communities in Morocco.  Some Jews fled to Ghardaia.  They joined the existing community, and over time, the two groups merged together.

Abandoned Synagogue in Ghardaia

The Jews of Ghardaia lived in relative harmony with their neighbors until the mid-20th century.  By then, Algeria was controlled by France, and the population of Ghardaia was divided between Ibadite Muslims (who originally settled the M’Zab Valley), Jews, and Sunni Muslims.  When the war of independence began in 1954, the situation for the Jews of Algeria deteriorated, and by June 1962, all the Jews of Ghardaia had been forced to seek refuge abroad.

Just as this 800-year chapter of Jewish history was drawing to a close, two anthropologists arrived on the scene, hoping to study genetic traits of the Jewish people there.  Instead, they documented the final years and days of Ghardaia’s Jews.  The anthropologists, Lloyd Cabot Briggs and Norina Lami Guede, wrote up their observations in an amazing (and obscure) paper called “No More Forever: A Saharan Jewish Town.”  The paper begins: “This book is the record of a people who are gone.”  Recalling their own departure, through newly established rebel checkpoints in the now independent Algeria, Briggs and Guede write:

The notebooks and pictures that we carried with us were the only coherent record that remained of a curiously distinctive way of life which had gone on for centuries and came suddenly to an end, leaving behind it only empty houses and an abandoned cemetery in the desert.

The same synagogue, circa 1958

It so happened that I was visiting Algeria during Passover, and so I was particularly keen to find other Jews, or at least visit Jewish sites.  With the help of several friends, I was able to visit the old synagogue of Ghardaia and the Jewish graveyard.

The synagogue had been empty for almost 40 years when I visited, and it was in bad shape.  A man lived there, and he allowed us to visit for a few minutes.  I took some pictures, which you can see here, and I said a prayer.  It was quite moving to pray in that abandoned temple, where (I assume) no Jew had prayed for almost 40 years.

The synagogue was a typical Sephardic design, with blue and white walls, and numerous thick columns.  A wooden bimah (stage) would have formed the center piece of the room, but it was gone.  Parts of the domed roof had collapsed, covering the floor with piles of stone and mortar.  The ceiling above the women’s section had fallen in, filling the balcony with rubble.  A few chains hung from the ceiling.  At one time they held lamps with an eternal flame, long since extinguished.  Two Stars of David were all that remained to confirm that we were in a synagogue.

Another view of the synagogue.

After visiting the synagogue, we walked to the Jewish cemetery, which is a mile or two outside the town.  It’s difficult to get a sense for the size of the graveyard, as it blends perfectly with the rocky surroundings.  It was here, in 1962, that the last Jews of Ghardaia buried their old prayer books, before departing their oasis homes forever (in Jewish tradition, books containing the name of G-d are buried, not thrown away).  The oldest dated grave is from 1749 (5509 in the Jewish calendar), but some graves are probably centuries older.  Members of the community used to come to a small grotto here to light candles and pray for assistance from their ancestors.  Women who reached menopause came here to pray for one more male child.  I also said a prayer at the graveyard and I placed stones on some of the graves (it is a Jewish tradition to place stones on the graves).

The Jewish cemetery near Ghardaia

The last Jews of Ghardaia left Algeria in 1962.  They fled to France and most of them are still there.  All in all, over 800,000 Middle Eastern Jews were forced to flee their homes between 1948 (the founding of the state of Israel) and the 1970’s.  Like the Jews of Ghardaia, they came from communities that had existed for centuries (and in some cases millennium).  Also like the Jews of  Ghardaia, they lost most of their property and were lucky to escape with their lives.  Having seen a bit of this history makes me lament the loss of these ancient and diverse communities, but it also reminds me of the importance of offering refuge to those fleeing persecution.

For more information about the Jews of Ghardaia, take a look at Jews of the Sahara by Ronald L. Nagel.

Some (Unsolicited) Advice for the Anti-Refugee Crowd

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.

Iconic Afghan Asylee Adopts to Life in the U.S.

Aesha Mohammadzai, the Afghan woman who was featured on the cover of Time magazine after relatives cut off her nose and ears, appears in a new CNN on-line piece called Saving Aesha.

Aesha Mohammadzai: The face that launched a thousands quips.

When she was 12 years old, Aesha’s father promised her to a Taliban fighter in order to satisfy an obligation.  Not surprisingly, the marriage was abusive and when she was 18, Aesha fled.  She was captured and returned to her husband’s family.  As punishment for attempting to escape, her husband’s family cut off her nose and ears, and left her to die.  Aid workers and the U.S. military rescued her, and she was brought to a shelter run by Women for Afghan Women

Although generally protective of Aesha’s privacy, WAW ultimately brought her case to the attention of Time magazine.  As CNN reports:

The organization’s decision to allow Time to photograph Aesha in 2010 was calculated and deliberate. The group wanted to influence the conversation about U.S. troop withdrawals, and Aesha was its best chance. She became the poster child for the 15 million Afghan women and girls it fears will be brought to their knees, again, if troops leave too soon and the Taliban regain control.

Possibly due to the publicity surrounding her case, she was able to come to the U.S. for reconstructive surgery.  But Aesha did not adjust well to the United States.  She was still suffering from severe mental and emotional trauma, and her reconstructive surgery had to be postponed due to her fragile emotional state.  Women for Afghan Women took over her care and provide her with housing and volunteer tutors. 

Perhaps due to her emotional condition, it seems Aesha was a difficult charge.  She constantly threw fits, and one roommate after another fled her apartment.  At one point, she was hospitalized for 10 days.  After that incident, her medications were changed and she started doing better.

CNN reports that in late 2010, Aesha’s father-in-law was arrested for his role in her mutilation:

Authorities said he held Aesha at gunpoint and ordered five other men — including her husband — to cut her. The father-in-law was released last July, however, reportedly because he didn’t do the cutting himself and because Aesha is no longer around to pursue the case.

Aesha received asylum in the United States in November 2011.  Although I was unable to find information about the basis for her asylum, there are a number of possible grounds: The claim could have been based on her particular social group–one formulation for this claim might be women who fear persecution in Afghanistan based on resistance to forced marriage.  Also, she might have framed the claim in terms of religious persecution–her family members harmed her because she would not comply with their version of Islam.  In addition, since she claims her husband in the forced marriage was a Taliban, she might have a fear of persecution based on imputed political opinion after her case became public and she moved to the U.S.  Obviously, the government of Afghanistan is unable and unwilling to protect her. 

Aesha’s case illustrates several important points.  First, refugees are often very damaged people.  Aesha is much worse off than most refugees, but people who flee persecution, who have been injured, who have lost loved ones, and who have lost their homes and property often have mental health issues.  Such people may be difficult to deal with, and those who assist refugees must be patient and understanding.  For me, at least, it is not always easy to be patient with difficult clients, especially when I am under pressure from several cases at once.  I imagine this is true for many people assisting refugees.

A second point involves media coverage.  According to CNN, Women for Afghan Women made a decision to publicize Aesha’s case in order to influence the debate about American troops in Afghanistan.  Given Aesha’s fragile condition, it is unclear whether she had the capacity to understand the effect of going public, even if she did give consent (which is not clear from the CNN article).  Lawyers and their clients sometimes have diverging interests, particularly when there is an opportunity for publicity.  Most lawyer want publicity, but most clients prefer anonymity.  I doubt that WAW had a fiduciary duty to Aesha when they publicized the case, but they certainly had a moral responsibility.  If the CNN article is accurate, it raises serious issues about WAW’s decision to publicize Aesha’s case. 

A final point raised by Aesha’s case is that women are often ill-served by our asylum law.  Many female asylum seekers fear persecution based on forced marriage, FGM, domestic violence, and the like.  But these issues do not fit neatly into the protected categories for asylum (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, and particular social group).  Fortunately, enterprising lawyers (and judges) have broadened the basis for asylum to protect women from some of these harms.  Wouldn’t it be nice, though, if the Refugee Convention specifically recognized these types of harms?

Aesha’s case illustrates how complicated and difficult it can be to assist a refugee and help her rebuild her life.  In this process, asylum is often only a first step.  

India Needs an Asylum Policy

India is one of the few remaining countries that has not ratified the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or the 1967 Protocol (the U.S. is a party to the Protocol, but not the Convention).  This means that India has no regular procedure for granting asylum to people fleeing persecution.  Nevertheless, according to UNHCR:

[The] country hosts a large number of refugees and respects the principle of non-refoulement for holders of UNHCR documentation.  India continues to grant asylum to a large number of refugees from neighbouring States, protecting and assisting some 200,000 Tibetans and Sri Lankans. In the absence of a national legal framework for asylum, UNHCR registers asylum-seekers and conducts refugee status determination (RSD) in New Delhi, mostly for arrivals from Afghanistan and Myanmar.

While this arrangement protects certain people seeking asylum, others who need assistance cannot get it, or are left to languish in refugee camps.

Even Bollywood endorses helping refugees (at least the good looking ones).

In a recent editorial, writer Harini Calamur eloquently explains why India needs an asylum policy.  Ms. Calamur relates the story of Rinkle Kumari, a 19-year-old Hindu girl living in Pakistan.  Earlier this year, a group of Muslim men broke into Rinkle’s home, kidnapped her, and forced her to convert to Islam and marry her neighbor.  The group of men was connected with a local Pakistani politician and the government failed to intervene.  After the case gained national attention, the Supreme Court of Pakistan sent Rinkle to a shelter where she could decide whether to remain with her husband or return to her parents.  She decided to remain with her husband.  Most observers believe that her decision was based on coercion–she feared that her family would be harmed if she returned home.

Ms. Calamur asks what would happen if Rinkle escaped from Pakistan and sought asylum in India.  Given the absence of an asylum system, Ms. Calamur writes that in the best case, Rinkle would end up in a refugee camp:

Refugees live in camps and have neither the right to free movement within India nor are they entitled to work. Most are in a state of suspended animation and have their lives at standstill. If Rinkle and her family escaped to India this is what they would face, and there is something terribly wrong and unjust about that.

Ms. Calamur makes the case for India to adopt an asylum system:

To be considered a world power, you don’t just need a nuclear arsenal and growing prosperity. There needs also to be a measure of compassion, sharing and providing of refuge. India needs to start by offering asylum and citizenship to the persecuted minorities in its neighbourhood. There will be those who misuse this open policy, as they have in other countries. But the needs of the persecuted, the fate of one Rinkle, far outweighs the misuse of an asylum policy.

Well said, Ms. Calamur.  I hope those in the West who question the need for an asylum system hear your words.

Albanian Informant and His Family Granted Asylum – Finally

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.

Congress Considers Waiving the One-Year Asylum Deadline for Indonesian Christians

Note to policy advocates: If you want Congress to pass a law helping immigrants, try to frame the law in a way that sticks it to the Muslims.  That is exactly what has been happening with a proposed bill (HR 3590) to help Indonesian Christians who were persecuted by Muslims in the late 1990’s. 

The bill would allow Indonesians who filed for asylum between 1997 and 2002, and whose cases were denied solely because they missed the one-year filing deadline, to reopen their cases and seek asylum (people seeking asylum in the U.S. are required to file their applications within one year of arriving here).  The bill has been pushed by advocates for Indonesian Christians, and there are currently 16 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, where Muslim-bashing is all the rage.

People of all faiths will celebrate if the one-year deadline is repealed.

First, it must be said that many Indonesian Christians were persecuted by Indonesian Muslims during the late 1990’s and early 2000’s (I have represented several such people myself). 

My problem with what Congress is doing is not that they are helping Indonesian Christians by essentially waiving the one-year filing requirement.  Rather, I do not see why other groups who have suffered equal or worse persecution in their countries should not be afforded the same benefit as the Indonesian Christians.  In other words, since it is clearly unfair and ineffective at preventing fraud (the purported purpose of the deadline), why not just eliminate the one-year filing deadline for everyone?  I previously discussed this idea here.

The reason–I believe–that HR 3590 has gotten some traction in Congress is because it protects Christians from Muslims, our current boogeymen.  This is the same reason why Congress passed various resolutions regarding Darfur but ignored a more severe genocide in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  It is also the same type of reasoning that gave us the Cuban Adjustment Act–a law giving legal status to any Cuban who arrives in the United States even though country conditions in Cuba are not as bad as in other places.  In the case of the CAA, the driving force behind that law was our desire to stick it to the Commies.

I suppose all this represents an underlying tension in asylum law between using that law to further our foreign policy goals (what I would call realpolitik) and simply applying international humanitarian law in a neutral way.  This point deserves further attention, and I will come back to it in a future posting.  For now, I will say only that I hope HR 3590 becomes law; not because I think Indonesian Christians deserve better treatment than other asylum seekers, but because I hope it will be a step towards eliminating the nonsensical one-year filing deadline for all asylum seekers.

Seeking Asylum at the U.S. Embassy in China

When Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng escaped house arrest and fled to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing on April 22, it touched off an international crisis.  A high-level visit to China by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was upstaged by the incident, which remains unresolved.

You known you're a dissident when you've been Shepard Fairey-ized.

In some ways, when a prominent political activist seeks shelter at a foreign embassy, it seems like a classic case of political asylum.  Technically, though, an embassy cannot offer asylum to someone in his or her home country.  Asylum is only for refugees, and a refuge–by definition–is “any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality [and who has] a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” See INA § 101(a)(42) (emphasis added).

Since Mr. Chen never left China, he was ineligible for refugee status and could not have been granted asylum by the U.S. Embassy.  This does not mean that our government was powerless to help him after he arrived at the embassy.  United States embassies (indeed, all embassies) can offer protection to people on embassy grounds, as the host country is not permitted to violate embassy property.

A well-known example of our government offering protection under similar circumstances was when another Chinese dissident, Fang Lizhi, fled to the U.S. Embassy after the massacre in Tienanmen Square.  Dr. Fang remained in the embassy for over a year, until the Chinese government finally agreed to allow him to leave the country.

I suppose in Mr. Chen’s case, the Embassy might have smuggled him out without getting permission from China, but that would have had serious implications for U.S.-China relations and for Mr. Chen, whose family had been threatened by the Chinese government on account of his actions.  Also, it seems, Mr. Chen had not yet made up his mind to leave the country.

As of today, the Chinese government has apparently agreed to allow Mr. Chen to travel to the U.S. to attend New York University, which has offered him a visiting scholar position (I wrote about this idea in an article called Private Asylum for Refugee Academics).  If he really is permitted to leave, Mr. Chen can claim asylum once he reaches the United States.  He obviously has a strong case for receiving protection.  But until he actually departs from China, Mr. Chen’s situation remains precarious.

Beautiful People Seeking Asylum

Two Cuban actors who star in an award winning movie, Una Noche, have defected and will be seeking political asylum in the United States.  Coincidentally, the movie tells the story of three Cuban teenagers who try to escape Cuba on a raft in order to start a new life in America. 

America's newest asylum seekers are also some of its most glamorous.

Una Noche was a low budget film directed by Lucy Mulloy, a 32-year-old Brit who shot the movie in Havana.  She says that she was inspired by a tale she heard on a trip to the island nation 10 years ago.

The film achieved unexpected success, and the three stars of the movie–all of whom are non-professional actors–traveled to Germany and later to the U.S. for film festivals.  In the U.S., the trio was scheduled to attend the Tribeca Film Festival in New York, where Una Noche won multiple awards.  However, two of the actors, Analin de la Rua and Javier Nuñez Florian, disappeared after they arrived in the United States and missed the festival (where Mr. Nuñez Florian shared an award for Best Actor in a Narrative Feature Film with the third co-star, Dariel Arrechada).

Ms. de la Rua and Mr. Nuñez Florian played brother and sister in the movie, and (in a Brady Bunch-esque twist) fell in love in real life and decided to defect together.  They recently re-appeared in Miami, represented by attorney Wilfredo Allen, who indicated that they would file for political asylum “based on possible persecution if they return to Cuba.”

Although the couple seems not to have had problems in Cuba prior to their trip to the U.S. (and indeed, they returned to Cuba after a trip to Germany), the public nature of their defection possibly puts them in danger if they return and likely qualifies them for asylum.  Of course, under the Cuban Adjustment Act, even if they do not receive asylum, they would be eligible to apply for residency after one year of physical presence in the United States.  So either way, the couple should be able to remain in the United States.  We will be looking for them in Hollywood.