Many African asylum seekers enter the United States at the Mexican border. Their journey to the U.S. is long and circuitous. In East Africa (where some of my clients come from), people travel from Ethiopia, Eritrea or Somalia to Kenya. From there, they go to South Africa and Brazil using false passports, and then through South America (sometimes by boat up the Amazon River!), to Central America, and then Mexico and the U.S. Along the route, they are passed from one smuggler to the next. Its big business for the smugglers: I’ve heard the trip costs between $10,000.00 and $15,000.00, and sometimes more.
A smuggler guides a couple illegal aliens across the border.
Last year, Abrahaley Fessahazion, an Eritrean based in Guatemala pleaded guilty to helping smuggle illegal aliens to the United States for financial gain. Mr. Fessahazion was caught after he came to the U.S. and filed a false claim for political asylum. He faces up to 10 years in prison.
Now, if the rumor mill is to be believed, DHS and at least one Latin American government are planning to arrest some additional smugglers in Central America. DHS investigators have been interviewing smuggled aliens in the United States. They have asked the aliens to identify photos of several smugglers based in Central American. While most of the smugglers are from Latin America, at least one is African.
It seems that DHS’s central concern involves the Somalis, who have long been viewed as a potential threat to national security (I’ve blogged about this issue here), and apparently DHS’s interrogation of the smuggled aliens has focused on Somali migrants.
If the rumors are true, and certain Latin American governments are cooperating in the crackdown, life might be about to become difficult for the smugglers.
For many immigration attorneys, the people we can’t help are the ones we remember the best. I received a sad call last week and there was little I could do to assist.
Apparently, the caller’s husband had applied for asylum prior to the marriage. He was denied and then failed to leave. Later, he met the caller, they fell in love, and married. Whether she knew about his immigration problems prior to the marriage, I do not know. In any case, she got pregnant.
Two months into the pregnancy, the husband was detained by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), and quickly returned to his home country in West Africa, leaving his wife alone in the United States.
The wife called me to ask about the possibilities for him to return, based on the marriage. She told me that she was working seven days a week to support herself. She felt that without her husband’s help, she was incapable of taking care of a child. She told me that since she was separated from her husband, she would probably not keep the baby.
I advised her of the legal consequences of the husband’s overstay and removal (he is barred from returning for 10 years), and discussed the possibility of him returning based on the marriage. Although the couple could apply for a waiver to allow the husband to return to the U.S. in less than 10 years, I doubt he will return quickly–certainly not in time for the baby.
I understand that the husband is likely to blame for his family’s predicament, and I am not sure what, if anything, “the system” did wrong. Maybe I am also being sensitive, having recently become a father myself. Nevertheless, the caller’s story is a sad example of an unintended consequence of the immigration system.
I wonder if this refugee family - reunited with help from HIAS - thinks the organization has outlived its purpose.
A prime example of a refugee resettlement organization whose raison d’etre has become self-perpetuation is the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS). The venerable organization that has helped Jews fleeing pogroms, the Holocaust and, more recently, oppression in the Soviet Union, has been confronted with a situation that might otherwise be considered a positive development: There [are] remarkably few Jewish refugees in need of resettlement. Without a real mission, HIAS has resorted to inventing one rather than declaring its mission accomplished and closing its doors. By its own admission, only a small percentage of the people resettled by HIAS are the people whom the organization ostensibly exists to serve.
This statement is pretty ridiculous. Today, there are over 14 million refugees in the world. HIAS was created to help Jewish refugees. Now that (thankfully) there are few Jewish refugees, HIAS uses its expertise to assist other people in need. To anyone concerned about helping others, this seems like a no-brainer. Apparently, though, FAIR doesn’t get it.
Particular Social Group
FAIR complains that the definition of “particular social group” has been expanded too far. Specifically, the report mentions homosexuals, and argues that most cases of persecution based on sexual orientation involve persecution by private individuals where the government cannot or will not protect the individual from harm. FAIR objects to this in principle:
In essence, decisions of this type put the United States in the position of a safety valve whenever foreign governments fail to exercise their responsibilities to protect their own citizens. That may be a noble objective, but it is an unreasonable burden.
First, while some cases of persecution of gays involve non-state actors, a number of countries persecute homosexuals, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, where the “offense” of homosexuality is punishable by death. Second, protecting individuals who face harm or death is not an “unreasonable burden” (when is saving someone’s life ever really an unreasonable burden?). There are no statistics about the number of people granted asylum based on “particular social group,” but my guess is that only a small percentage of asylum seekers fear persecution on account of their particular social group. So even if we are concerned with the number of people winning asylum based on this protected ground, that number is fairly small. Finally, the asylum law does not require state action–people who face persecution from non-state actors are eligible for asylum if their government cannot or will not protect them. To the person who is persecuted or killed, it may not matter much whether he is killed due to government action or government inaction. Dead, as they say, is dead.
Asylum Should Be Temporary
FAIR also believes that a grant of asylum should generally be temporary:
Asylum protection should be temporary, maintaining the focus of the individual on the need to return to the home country to work for positive change.
By this logic, we should have sent Einstein back to Nazi Germany to work for “positive change.”
The hope, of course, is that asylum seekers will return to their country if conditions improve, but the reality is that most will not–even if it becomes safe to go back. For one thing, it usually takes a long time for country conditions to change. I represent many asylum seekers from Ethiopia. That country has had the same repressive government for almost 20 years, and it does not look to improve anytime soon. Also, people need to feel that they are safe. To grant someone asylum, only to deport her later, leaves her in a frightful limbo, unable to move forward with her life or to feel secure. Finally, when helping another person, it is important to respect that person. We should respect asylees enough to allow them to make their own decision about whether it is safe to return.
So I suppose that concludes my comments on FAIR’s report. While I disagree with many of the recommendations, the report raises points that are worth discussing, and I hope the conversation will continue.
Recently, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) released a report called Refugee and Asylum Policy Reform. Last week, I wrote about some problems with the report’s methodology. Since it’s a new year, I wanted to do something more positive, so for today’s post, I will discuss some recommendations in the report that I agree with.
The Cuban Adjustment Act
The report recommends that the Cuban Adjustment Act be scrapped as a Cold War anachronism:
The exemption of Cubans in the United States from being required to justify a well-founded fear of persecution if sent back to Cuba is a political rather than humanitarian provision that encourages illegal immigration from Cuba. The Cuban Adjustment Act should be repealed and the “wet-foot-dry-foot” policy that paroles Cubans into the country should be rescinded by the president.
While I oppose the Cuban Adjustment Act, Cuba's loss has been our gain: Rapper Cuban Link
This policy has never made much sense to me, especially since the end of the Cold War. I’ve represented Cubans who gained their residency in the U.S. through the Cuban Adjustment Act, and they have all been very nice people. But they were not political dissidents or people who faced persecution in Cuba. Maybe the original idea behind the Act was to score a propaganda victory against Cuba, but after 50 years of the “Revolution,” I don’t know that it’s done much good (on the other hand, all those Cubans coming to the U.S. have greatly enhanced our country). Rather than allow any Cuban who reaches the U.S. to remain here, we would do better to require each person to prove that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Cuba, just like asylum seekers from other countries.
Coercive Family Planning
Congress has defined the term “refugee” to include victims of China’s coercive family planning policies. The FAIR report recommends that the “expansion of the definition of a refugee to include coercive family planning policies should be reversed.” “It deviates from international practice and encourages illegal immigration from China.”
I have always felt that it is unfair to condemn China for its one-child policy. That country faces a very real and very dangerous population crisis, and the government instituted a policy (however unpalatable) to avoid disaster. The law that FAIR opposes is more narrowly written than the report indicates, but it is still over-broad. INA § 101(a)(42)(B) defines “refugee” as follows:
For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.
The law appropriately defines “refugees” to include past victims and possible future victims of forced abortion and forced sterilization. However, those who “resist” the family planning policy are also covered. I would limit the definition of “refugee” to include only those who suffer from the coercive policies, not those who merely oppose such policies (though in my understanding, asylum is not given willy-nilly to anyone who expresses opposition to the one-child policy, and in this respect, I think FAIR’s concern is a bit over-blown).
Asylum Fraud
The FAIR report is concerned with “combating the documented fraud in the asylum system.” Fraud is a problem in the asylum system, and it is one I have written about before in a post creatively titled Fraud and Asylum. I believe the most effective method to combat fraud–and I did not see this mentioned in the FAIR report–is to aggressively go after attorneys and notarios who engage in fraudulent practices. To quote my own blog on this point:
Another option is to identify attorneys and notarios who prepare claims deemed suspicious. Such people should be investigated and, if evidence of fraud is uncovered, prosecuted. This, to me, is the easiest and most effective solution. The DHS attorneys generally know who is producing and/or facilitating fraudulent claims. Why not send an undercover investigator posing as a client to the suspected attorney? If the attorney suggests that the “client” engage in fraud, the attorney could be charged with a crime…. Such tactics would reduce fraud by eliminating the purveyors of fraud and by deterring others who might engage in such practices.
So, I am pleased to have found a few points of agreement with the FAIR report. In a future post, I will discuss some areas of disagreement. Happy New Year.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) recently released a report calling for reform of our country’s refugee and asylum policies. The report, titled Refugee and Asylum Policy Reform, was authored by FAIR’s Director of Special Projects, Jack Martin. The report covers a wide range of topics, from refugee admissions, to Temporary Protected States (TPS), to Chinese family planning asylum. In general–and as expected–it calls for restricting humanitarian benefits for people seeking protection in the United States. Concerning asylum, the report states:
Our country’s asylum law has been expanded by legislation and by court decisions to the extent that it has grown from a small program intended for unusual situations, where the return to a home country would constitute exposure to persecution, to become a major component of immigrant admissions. It too, by the absence of evidentiary standards, is open to fraud by persons who have no other basis for entry as immigrants.
Having reviewed the report, there are some points I agree with, more points that I disagree with, and a few questions I have about the report’s methodology. The report is fairly long (36 pages), and there are a number of points worth discussing, so I will devote a couple blog posts to my response. For today’s post, I want to raise a few questions about the report’s methodology.
The report, p. 5, states that “combined refugee and asylee admissions have hit new levels in recent years, exceeding 200,000 in 2006,” but it is not clear where FAIR gets its numbers. According to the Department of Homeland Security, in 2006, 41,150 people were admitted into the United States as refugees, 12,873 were granted asylum affirmatively, and 13,240 were granted asylum defensively. By my calculation, the total number of refugee and asylee admissions for 2006 was 67,263 people. The figure of 200,000 likely refers to the number of asylees and refugees who adjusted status to lawful permanent residents in 2006. These are not new admissions. Rather, these are people who have been in the United States–in some cases for many years–who were able to adjust status after the cap on refugee adjustments was lifted in 2005.
Does anyone really trust statistics?
Also on page 5 of the report, there is a chart showing how many refugees and asylees were admitted into the U.S. from 1990 to 2009. The data on the chart purportedly comes from the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. But even a casual comparison of the Yearbook to FAIR’s chart reveals major discrepancies. For example, FAIR’s chart shows that over 100,000 refugees were admitted into the United States in 2009. However, the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (Table 13) states that 74,602 refugees were admitted in 2009. The chart also shows over 100,000 refugee admissions in 2002, but the Yearbook (Table 13) indicates that only 26,765 refugees were admitted in 2002. Again, FAIR’s numbers appear to be the number of refugees who adjusted status (i.e., obtained their green card) in a given year, not the number of refugees who actually entered the United States in the specified year.
Page 6 of the report refers to refugees from the Soviet Block. The report notes that the number of refugees has “nosedived” since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but states: “It is significant, however, that the admission of refugees from Russia and the Ukraine has not ended.” Next to this statement is a chart, purportedly showing the number of refugees from the “Soviet Union/Ukraine.” The chart shows that about 4,000 refugees came from the “Soviet Union/Ukraine” in 2009. A review of the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (Table 14) shows that in 2009, 495 refugees came from Russia and 601 came from the Ukraine, for a total of 1,096, far short of the 4,000 refugees listed on FAIR’s chart. Again, FAIR seems to be listing the number of refugees from the former Soviet Union who are adjusting status, not the number of new admissions. Some of these refugees may have lived in the U.S. for decades before adjusting status.
Page 14 of the report unfairly represents the proportion of refugees accepted by the United States. The report states:
[The] United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR)… states that the United States accepted of 62,000 refugees out of 84,000 who were identified as needing permanent resettlement by that agency in 2009 — nearly three-fourths of the total.
In fact, footnote 23 of the FAIR report states that: “In 2009, UNHCR submitted 129,000 refugees for resettlement…. 84,000 refugees were actually resettled last year.” So it seems to me a bit misleading to say that the U.S. accepted “62,000 refugees out of 84,000 who were identified as needing permanent resettlement,” when, in reality, the UN identified 129,000 refugees in need of permanent resettlement (and when there are about 15 million refugees worldwide). This means that the U.S. accepted less than half of the refugees identified for resettlement, not three-fourths as stated in FAIR’s report.
In sum, FAIR’s report gives a distorted impression of the number of refugees and asylees coming to the U.S. The report should have relied on the number of new arrivals–not the number of refugees and asylees who are already here and who are applying for residency–to make its points. Perhaps this would have made FAIR’s points somewhat less compelling, since the number of refugees and asylees arriving in the U.S. is less than what the report represents, but it would have had the virtue of being less misleading.
In future posts, I will discuss some points of agreement and disagreement with FAIR’s policy recommendations.
A recent article in the Baptist Press illustrates just how diverse the refugee advocacy community really is–and now, some pro-immigrant organizations have joined forces with an anti-Moslem, anti-gay hate group. The issue that has brought together this “coalition of religious, conservative, and human rights leaders” is the material support bar and the Obama Administration’s failure to adopt reforms to prevent innocent refugees from being classified as terrorists (I touched on this problem in a previous post).
Among the groups that joined together to call for reform are the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), Human Rights First, Concerned Women for America, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The group that really stands out to me is Concerned Women for America. Here are some quotes from their website:
In a time when families are struggling to pay their mortgages and utility bills, much less buy Christmas presents for their loved ones, the Smithsonian Institution, which is partly funded by American taxpayers, is promoting an exhibit that degrades Christianity and exalts homosexuality…. I urge Congress to swiftly take steps to defund the Smithsonian Institution for their reckless and inexcusable judgment in funding such a project.
On September 15, 2011, CWA will present an in-depth discussion with experts on America’s most important policy issue. This issue affects foreign policy, human rights and perhaps even our own system of law in the future. Come join us and our panel as we expose underlying tenets of Sharia Law and how it threatens our nation and your family.
Another measure that failed during the lame duck session was the DREAM Act, a back door amnesty bill that would grant automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, with “children” defined as anyone up to the age of 35.
So, CWA hates Moslems and DREAM Act children. They also hate gay people: the Southern Poverty Law Center notes that the organization’s founder “has blamed gay people for a ‘radical leftist crusade’ in America and, over the years, has occasionally equated homosexuality with pedophilia.” But the CWA supports reforming the material support bar for refugees, and is thus part of the broader coalition.
What’s surprising to me is that mainstream groups such as HIAS and Human Rights First–groups that I strongly support–would join together with a group like CWA. Maybe I am naive to think that reform can occur without a broad coalition, but it seems to me that some groups are simply beyond the pale. Don’t get me wrong–I greatly respect most of the groups that have joined together to call for reforming the material support bar. But I respectfully suggest that they should be more careful about who they partner with in the future. To me at least, the ends simply do not justify the means.
I finished my last asylum trial of the year earlier this month, and I almost lost the case, thanks to a witness who had flown in from Cameroon especially for the occasion.
I felt that our case was pretty strong–my client was a political activist who had been arrested several times in his country. The case was well documented, and my client seemed credible. Even the government attorney indicated that we should get it over with quickly–a sure sign that she anticipated a grant. Then, basically out of nowhere, the witness starts babbling about the time he and my client were arrested together in Cameroon. My client had never mentioned this arrest to me, nor had the witness told me about it during our preparation session. In Immigration Court, attorneys are not permitted to strangle their own witnesses, so there was nothing I could do but watch my case go down the drain. Fortunately, during re-direct, I was able to elicit some explanation from the witness. Then we had my client return to the stand to further clarify. In the end, the Judge granted relief, but a strong case was nearly sunk by a witness with a big mouth.
The Rules of Professional Conduct do not allow an attorney to strangle a witness, even when it seems justified.
All this raises the question: Do the benefits of witnesses outweigh the risks? It’s a question I have thought a lot about. On the one hand, the REAL ID Act requires us to submit reasonably available evidence, so if a witness is available and we do not bring her to Court, the IJ could use that to support a denial. On the other hand, it is difficult to hold the respondent responsible for a witness who fails to appear, and a well-supported case will likely be granted even when there is no witness.
Nevertheless, I tend to bring witnesses to Court if I have them. For one thing (and perhaps this is naive), I feel a certain duty to present my case, for better or worse. If the IJ sees that we are presenting everything we have, and being as open as possible, I believe that we are more likely to win the case. Also, I feel it makes me a more credible lawyer, and thus helps my clients over the long run. In addition (and again, possibly naively), I believe I can usually prepare the witness for cross examination and anticipate questions that the DHS attorney might ask. When the respondent and her witness testify consistently about details of an event (especially when those details have not been presented previously in the written statements), it is strong evidence of their veracity. Finally, I tend to believe (maybe yet again naively) that my clients are telling me the truth when they describe the basis for their asylum claim. If the client is telling the truth, a well-prepared witness should only help the case. If the client is lying about his claim, and inconsistent testimony exposes the lie, the client really only has himself to blame.
Of course, even in a completely bona fide case, an ill-prepared or foolish witness can tank an asylum claim. That is why I am very wary of witnesses who can corroborate large tracts of a respondent’s story. The more the witness knows about a respondent’s story, the more opportunities exist for the DHS attorney (or the IJ) to ask detailed question about information not in the written statement and that we did not discuss during trial preparation (the idea is to ask questions that the witnesses are not prepared for, and then compare the answers to make sure the testimony is consistent). Such questions can be confusing to witnesses who–despite repeated reminders not to do so–sometimes guess at the answers. A better witness is a person with first-hand knowledge of one small part of the case. Such a person is less likely to face a broad range of questions from the DHS attorney.
Despite the risks, I feel that a well-prepared witness can go a long way towards winning an asylum case. I can think of several cases that were won by credible witnesses. Each case is different, and there are good arguments for avoiding the risks inherent in using a witness. Despite the risks, I will continue to favor the use of witnesses in my cases.
The Washington Post recently reported on a sharp spike in asylum seekers coming from Afghanistan. The increase corresponds with the U.S. troop surge, and a feeling in the country that a peaceful future is no longer possible.
Sometimes "flight" is wiser than "fight."
The number of Afghan asylum seekers has surpassed the number of people fleeing Iraq and Somalia, making Afghanistan the leading producer of asylum seekers in the world. In 2009, 27,057 Afghans sought official protection in foreign nations. The numbers are expected to be somewhat lower for 2010, but Afghanistan will remain the largest source of asylum seekers in the world. According to the Washington Post:
The vast majority of the refugees are young men in their teens, 20s and 30s, often well educated and with the financial means to pay $20,000 or more to human smugglers for passports and visas to Pakistan or Iran, then on to Europe, Australia, Canada or the United States.
Because of the difficulty in coming here, the United States received only about 113 Afghan asylum seekers in FY 2010.
In my own practice (in Washington, DC), during the last two years, I have seen an increase in asylum cases from Afghanistan. My firm filed 12 or 13 Afghan asylum cases in 2010 (so I suppose I represented about 10% of all Afghan asylum applicants in the United States for the year). About 2/3 of my clients were men, and most of them were young, fluent in English, and very well educated. Most of my male clients were journalists or somehow involved with the media. Others were working closely with the U.S. military. My female clients were women’s rights activists or “Westernized” students (or both). All the cases that I worked on so far have been successful, which reflects the Asylum Office’s view that the situation in Afghanistan is dangerous (and hopefully also that we are doing a good job).
I feel that my clients face a dangerous–and often life threatening–situation in Afghanistan. Several of them have had relatives murdered by the Taliban. However, I can’t help but think that Afghanistan is worse off without these well-educated and committed men and women. Before they left, they were contributing in important ways to the development of the country, and they were working against extremism. Unfortunately, it is just such people who are targeted by the Taliban. Indeed, these are the types of people that every repressive regime targets (the most well-known examples are the scientists, academics, and artists who fled from the Nazis).
Like many refugees before them, the Afghanis I represent have made a decision to leave families, friends, and promising careers to seek safety in the West. While I feel sad that Afghanistan is losing so many talented individuals, I respect their choice to leave. And while I hope the situation in their country improves, I am proud that our country offers protection to those Afghanis who need our assistance.
According to a report from Pink News, Europe’s Largest Gay News Service, the Czech Republic uses a test to determine whether asylum seekers are really gay. The test involves a cleverly-named device known as a “phallometer,” which measures arousal. The theory is that if a man (the test only works for people with phalluses) who claims to be gay becomes aroused while watching heterosexual pornography, then he is not really gay. Yes, this is about as dumb as it sounds.
Although testing erections seems ridiculous, the problem of asylum seekers lying to obtain status is well known. Certainly some asylum seekers falsely claim to be gay in order to win their cases. I had a case once of a Russian woman who falsely claimed to be a lesbian. Her case was denied by the Asylum Office, and she hired me to represent her in Immigration Court, where she was filing for adjustment of status based on her marriage (to a man). We admitted that she lied on her asylum application and she applied for a waiver, which was granted.
It is not easy to detect false asylum claims, particularly when the claim involves delving into personal details, such as sexual orientation. In cases I have worked on involving persecution based on sexual orientation, we submitted letters from friends and family attesting to the alien’s sexuality. This has generally been sufficient for DHS, and they normally stipulate that the alien is gay. Such an approach saves the alien (and everyone involved) the need to delve into personal details that can be embarrassing and humiliating for the asylum seeker, and is more consistent with international human rights law, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.
The mood ring--less intrusive and more accurate than the phallometer
Cases where the asylum seeker does not have anyone to attest to his orientation are more problematic. An alien’s credible testimony alone could be sufficient to support a finding that the alien is gay. Perhaps if the alien seeks counseling for past persecution or discrimination, the care-giver could attest to his sexual orientation. In some cases, courts might accept a lie detector test–at least it is less intrusive than a phallometer.
As for the Czech Republic, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights states that phallometric testing violates international human rights laws, which prohibit torture and inhumane or degrading treatment, and is particularly inappropriate for asylum seekers because they “might have suffered abuse due to their sexual orientation and are thus specifically constrained by this kind of exposure.”
Such a test seems degrading and insulting, not to mention completely useless for revealing a person’s sexual orientation. Hopefully, now that the practice has come to light, it will be discontinued.
Special thanks to David Cleveland for alerting us to this issue.
WikiLeaks’s Founder Julian Assange has been much in the news lately, having revealed all sorts of U.S. state secrets related to war and diplomacy. The United States is exploring whether the Australian-born computer hacker can be prosecuted criminally under the espionage act, and Sweden has issued an international arrest warrant, stating that Mr. Assange is “suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.” Australia is also threatening to arrest him on unspecified charges if he returns.
As a result, Mr. Assange–who denies the charges–has been hiding somewhere in London, and is considering seeking asylum in Switzerland or Ecuador. But does Mr. Assange qualify for political asylum under international law?
To obtain asylum, an individual must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in his home country based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group.
Thus, the first question is whether a nexus exists between any potential persecution and one of the protected grounds, in this case political opinion. Under U.S. law, whistle blowing can be a form of political activity that forms the basis for an asylum claim. So assuming Mr. Assange’s activities constitute whistle blowing (which seems an open question), he has expressed a political opinion, which could form the basis for an asylum claim.
Another question is whether Mr. Assange has a well-founded fear of persecution in Australia. The Australian government has threatened to arrest him, though for what crime remains a mystery. Even if he were arrested in Australia, I know of no evidence supporting the conclusion that Australia persecutes its criminals. His detention alone–even if it were for an illegitimate reason–would only constitute persecution if the conditions of that detention were dangerous and life-threatening, a situation that does not exist in Australia.
A more interesting question is whether Mr. Assange could obtain asylum from Australia if the Australian government would extradite him to a third country where he faces persecution. Currently, Mr. Assange could be extradited to Sweden, where he faces sexual assault charges, or the U.S., which is considering charges of espionage. Although the United States’s human rights record has been tainted of late, I doubt Mr. Assange could demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in either the U.S. or Sweden. But what if Australia planned to extradite Mr. Assange to another country that does persecute its citizens? I know of no case law or precedent that would allow Mr. Assange to obtain asylum from Australia on the basis that Australia planned to extradite him to a third country where he would be persecuted.
So even if Mr. Assange could show that he faces prosecution in Australia or that the Australian government would turn him over to Sweden or the U.S., he would have a hard time showing that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in any of those countries.While Mr. Assange probably does not meet the international law standard for asylum, his notoriety gives him opportunities not available to other asylum seekers. Already, Ecuador has (informally) offered him residency. Other countries might well follow suit, either because they think it is the right thing to do, or because they want to aggravate the United States and the West. But if they do grant asylum to Mr. Assange, it won’t be because he meets the requirement for asylum under international law.
According to El Universal, Guillermo Zuloaga, the main owner of Venezuela’s news network Globovisión, has filed for asylum in the United States. He claims that he is a victim of “political persecution” by the Hugo Chavez government. President Chavez counters that Mr. Zuloaga is not a victim of political persecution but a “bandit.”
This man likes red hats and hates a free press.
The dispute centers on charges brought against Mr. Zuloaga by the Venezuelan government. Voice of America reports that the government issued a warrant for Mr. Zuloaga’s arrest based on fraud charges relating to an auto dealership that he owns. The government also accused him of involvement in a $100-million scheme to assassinate the Venezuelan president.
Mr. Zuloaga denies the charges and states that President Chavez ordered his arrest in order to stifle his pro-opposition news channel. President Chavez has waged a long-running campaign against Globovision, including arresting Mr. Zuloaga in March 2010 for criticizing the government’s crackdown on the media. Mr. Zuloaga was released the day after his arrest, but was charged with “insulting the president” and “inciting collective panic by means of false information through the press,” charges that could result in more than seven years in prison.
This man just likes red hats.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights earlier this year expressed its concern about the use of the punitive power of the state to silence opponents in Venezuela. The IACHR also condemned the March 2010 arrest of Mr. Zuloaga:
The IACHR and its Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression express their deep concern over Zuloaga’s arrest, which evidences the lack of independence of the judiciary and the utilization of the criminal justice system to punish criticism, producing an intimidating effect that extends to all of society.
A high profile case such as Mr. Zuloaga’s has the potential to further erode relations between the U.S. and Venezuela. Nevertheless, if Mr. Zuloaga meets the criteria for asylum–and the IAHCR report makes me think that he will–he should receive protection in our country.
The wife of alleged Russian arms smuggler Viktor Bout claims that U.S. officials offered political asylum to Mr. Bout and his family in exchange for information about international arms trafficking.
Viktor Bout flashes a V sign while detained in Thailand: Does it stand for Victim or Villian?
According to Voice of America, Mr. Bout was extradited from Thailand to the United States after more than two-years of legal battles between Moscow and Washington. Mr. Bout is alleged to be one of the world’s most notorious arms smugglers and is accused of fueling conflicts in Africa, the Middle East, and South America. He was arrested in Thailand in 2008 after a sting operation in which undercover American officials claimed to be members of the FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.
Alla Bout says her husband’s extradition was illegal because there was still a case against him pending in court in Thailand. She says that transferring her husband to the United States before the end of legal procedures in Thailand breached legal and humanitarian norms, and demonstrates Bangkok’s complete subservience to Washington.
An open question is whether U.S. officials offered Mr. Bout and his family political asylum in exchange for information about arms trafficking. Such a deal would not be unprecedented: During the Cold War, for example, a number of Soviet defectors were granted asylum in the United States, often in exchange for information about the U.S.S.R., or for propaganda purposes. I do not know whether to believe Ms. Bout’s claim that U.S. officials offered her husband asylum in exchange for information about arms trafficking. If the claim is true, it would appear that the United States has now chosen a stick over a carrot as a means of extracting information from the alleged arms dealer.
On his website, Mr. Bout claims that the charges against him were fabricated by a “corrupt United Nations contractor… [who] became mad for vengeance when Victor [Bout] refused to continue paying him.” Perhaps, but there seems to be some pretty strong evidence against him, including evidence documented in a book: Merchants of Death by Douglas Farah. In any case, Mr. Bout’s guilt or innocence is now an issue for the United States justice system, where he faces charges such as conspiring to kill Americans and supporting a terrorist organization.
According to the World Policy Blog, Burmese artist Chaw Ei Thein has filed for political asylum in the United States. Ms. Thien’s visual and performing arts have challenged the dictatorship in her country, and she faced arrest at least once for a performance art piece that her government found objectionable (the Burmese–or Myanmar–leadership is not known for its sense of humor). Apparently, Ms. Thein has been in the United States for some time and has been receiving assistance from freeDimensional, an organization that helps exiled artists. You can view some of Ms. Thein’s art on her blog.
I’ve always felt that there is a connection between art and exile. Some of the earliest written literature (from ancient Sumer) are lamentations for destroyed cities. One of my favorite musicians is Enrico Macias, an Algerian Jew who was exiled from his country during the war of independence. On the boat ride to France, he wrote the song “Adieu mon pays” (Goodbye my country). And a recent book by Joseph Horowitz, Artists in Exile, explores how refugees from war and revolution have transformed the performing arts in American. So it seems Ms. Thein is in good company.
A recent editorial in the science journal Nature calls for increased assistance to academics fleeing persecution. In many parts of the world, the editorial notes, “academics and their families can face discrimination, prison, or worse, for speaking out about or studying issues that threaten dominant policies or ideologies.” “They can also be persecuted for their politics, or for belonging to a particular ethnic group.”
The most famous refugee also had a great set of gams.
A number of organizations exist in the U.S. and abroad to assist threatened academics. Probably the most venerable such group is CARA–the Counsel for Assisting Refugee Academics. Founded in the UK in the 1930s to help scientists in continental Europe fleeing the Nazis, CARA supported some 1,500 academics in those dark years, 16 of whom went on to win Nobel prizes. It currently aids around 200 refugee academics annually. At a CARA event earlier this year, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, summed up what is at stake: “Defending intellectual freedom is defending the possibility not only of a free academy but of a society willing to learn — and thus a society willing to see itself critically.”
In the United States, two groups that assist endangered academics are Scholars at Risk and the Scholar Rescue Fund. Among other things, these groups protect threatened scholars by bringing them to universities in the United States and support academic freedom in countries throughout the world.
It is interesting that these NGOs are able to circumvent the normal refugee/asylum process for the people they are assisting. Rather than applying for refugee status abroad or seeking asylum in the United States, the academics are offered positions at host universities. They can then travel to the U.S. (or whichever country is hosting) using a regular visa (maybe an H1-B visa or a J visa, for example) and remain in legal status while they work at the university. Of course, once they are here, the scholars could apply for asylum if necessary.
I wonder whether this model–of private organizations bringing refugees into the country using the immigration tools at their disposal–could be applied to other groups who are ill served by our immigration laws: gay and lesbian partners of U.S. citizens, for example, or victims of domestic violence, or others who face persecution but cannot establish that the persecution is “on account of” a protected ground. I know professors are a special category–highly educated and employable under different immigration categories. But perhaps this type of “private political asylum” could be used to help others in need.
Every year, about 8,000 unaccompanied children enter the United States and are placed in removal proceedings. Many of those children are helped by KIND–Kids in Need of Defense, a non-profit organization begun in January 2009 with a $3 million grant from Microsoft (and help from refugee maven Angelina Jolie). Pleased with the success of the organization, which has offices in eight cities, Microsoft last month committed to another $3 million over the next three years.
Since KIND became operational in January 2009, almost 1,900 children have been referred to KIND for help finding a pro bono attorney; the children range in age from two to 18 years old, and come from more than 35 countries. KIND’s model is an innovative public-private partnership in which lawyers from firms, corporations, or private practice volunteer to represent children in immigration proceedings.
According to KIND Executive Director Wendy Young:
Many of these children are escaping severe abuse or persecution; others have been abandoned or have been trafficked to the United States. Some are hoping to reunite with their parents. They need and deserve representation to help them make their claim for U.S. protection. Without representation, children with viable claims are often unable to make them and can be sent back to their home countries, where their well-being, or even their lives, may be in danger.
There is an argument to be made that granting benefits to children who cross the border illegally creates an incentive for others to follow them and make the risky journey to the United States. And it is a dangerous trip–a group that tracks border deaths, No More Deaths, reports that over 250 people have died along the Arizona border during the last year. Hundreds more have died trying to enter through New Mexico, Texas, and California, or at other locations on the refugee route from Central America. I knew a prominent DHS attorney who routinely (and passionately) opposed relief for children who crossed the border illegally because he did not want to create incentives for other children.
After pedaling for many days, a border crosser gets ready to jump the fence.
While I agree that we don’t want to create incentives for children to risk their lives by crossing illegally into the United States, I doubt that assisting children with their cases does much to create such an incentive. For one thing, many of the children are leaving pretty awful circumstances–if they were safe and happy, they would stay home. In this context, the border crossing may be one of the least dangerous things they have to do to survive. Also, given the large flow of people across the border (in both directions), it seems unlikely that allowing those with meritorious cases to remain here would do much to incentivize people outside the U.S. Finally, young people are less likely to know about or be influenced by government policies. Even if we were deported all children who enter the U.S. without inspection, I think it would do little to dissuade others who are fleeing abuse or persecution in their homelands.
If children with legitimate claims are denied–perhaps because they are unrepresented and cannot present their cases effectively–it would mean returning them to dangerous circumstances in their home countries. Unaccompanied children who have fled to the U.S. seeking safety need help from KIND and other similar organizations. Without KIND’s help, many of those with legitimate claims would be sent back to their countries, where they would face abuse or worse.
With the most recent grant from Microsoft, it seems KIND will continue its life-saving work for some time to come.
For many immigration attorneys, the people we can’t help are the ones we remember the best. I received a sad call last week and there was little I could do to assist.
