“Membership in a Particular Social Group”: International Journalists and U. S. Asylum Law

At least thirty non-U.S. journalists in the last decade have argued in U.S. Courts of Appeal that U.S. immigration authorities erroneously denied their asylum applications based on persecution in their native countries. However, only about 20% of journalists were successful, mirroring the approximate national asylum success rate for all applicants. The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act does not include journalism as a basis for asylum, but some circuit court judges have stated that reporting on systemic official corruption is inherently political and, as a result could be grounds for asylum for persecuted journalists. A 2007 opinion from the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals defining “particular social group,” a key requirement for asylum, is examined for its application to journalists.     

Leveling the Odds: The Effect of Quality Legal Representation in Cases of Asymmetrical Capability

How much does attorney quality influence the outcome of cases in which one litigant is significantly more capable than the other? Using a unique dataset of all asylum merits decision from 1990 to 2010, we find that high quality representation evens the odds for asylum applicants and that not being represented by legal counsel is actually better than being represented by a poor lawyer. In this analysis, we draw on a modified party capability theory and create new measures of attorney capability. We find that variation in attorney capability is a primary driver of the disparity in asylum outcomes in U.S. immigration courts and that a likely causal mechanism for this influence is the judge‐specific reputation of an attorney.     

The Decline and Decay of European Refugee Policy

This article challenges the view, implicit in much current researchon EU migration and asylum policy, that supranationalizationis a self-evident antidote to the exclusionary and securitizedmigration policy that has been enacted through inter-governmentalcooperation. It does so by treating supranationalization asan open question in need of empirical scrutiny. To develop thisthesis, it undertakes not only a critique of the current developmentstowards supranational policies, but also of the inter-governmentalpolicy-making system, pursuing a broad brush historical assessmentup to and beyond Amsterdam, with the aim of bringing fresh andfurther insights into the future development of EU asylum policy.It concludes that the current aims are less to do with the establishmentof a common European asylum system and more to do with reducingimmigration pressure and compensating for the perceived lossesof internal security in the wake of full freedom of movementinside the Union. Communitarization will not necessarily occursimply because the European Union is intent upon institutingever stricter immigration controls. Communitarization is doggedby the legacy of intensive trans-governmentalism. In particular,the British, Danish and Irish governments have only been preparedto support communitarization so long as they could have separateprotocols that legitimized their non-participation. The UK andIreland have opted into all proposals on asylum, illegal migrationand civil law but have opted out of practically all proposalsconcerning visas, borders, and legal migration. The securitarianframe still predominates and trans-governmentalism refuses todie. In January 2005, following the agreement on The Hague programme,there was change in decision-making rules from unanimous votingto Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) in the European Council andco-decision with the European Parliament. Yet, there is no guaranteethis will bring about more liberal asylum rules, as is clearfrom the ‘Schengen Borders Code’ which was agreedin June 2005. This is because European migration policy hasalways been fraught with internal contradictions, which haveyet to be resolved. Accordingly, the emergence of a rights-respectingmodel of asylum law based on the Geneva Convention 1951 remainsa distant dream.     

Changing the support system for asylum seekers

The issues of asylum and the treatment of asylum seekers have once again hit the headlines in the UK. The recent problems in Kosovo in the former Yugoslavian territory have made the problem of dealing with asylum claims more acute. The past arrangements for asylum seekers have been inadequate and piecemeal and have developed as a result of changes made in 1996 and the subsequent intervention by the judiciary. The cost to the British taxpayer of the pre-1999 Act asylum arrangements has been over 500 million per year, 80 per cent of which has been spent on accommodating and supporting asylum seekers. There is also a huge backlog of cases and current figures are indicative of a system that is unable to cope. It is in the light of these problems that the Government has passed the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act. This Article examines the changes that will be made to UK asylum law by the 1999 Act and assesses the problems that may be caused by those changes in the areas of housing and other forms of assistance and the effect that these may have on families and children seeking asylum in the UK.     

Domestic Violence and Asylum: Toward a Working Model of Affirmative State Obligations

While the 1951 Convention is no longer limited geographicallyand its definition of a refugee is not linked to any particularcrisis or place, the source of persecution and the role of thestate with respect thereto has proved problematic. Domesticviolence claims have suffered particularly because of theseshortcomings, as these cases have been uneasy fits within doctrine.Though the Convention definition ordinarily envisions the stateas persecutor, domestic violence follows a different course.Almost inevitably, its victims are persecuted by their husbands.As ‘non-state actors’, they have frequently andwrongly eluded the Convention norms, revealing a tragic protectiongap in the Convention. An asylum seeker must prove that shehas a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion,nationality, membership of a particular social group or politicalopinion. Despite the seriousness of the claim, if the reasonfor the threat does not lie in one of those five sources, aproper asylum claim has not been made. Worse, however, the sourceof the persecution, a non-state actor, often blocks Conventionprotection. This paper will analyze these stumbling blocks toasylum seekers. It will posit the notion that legitimate asylumseekers have been marginalized by their home countries, renderedvirtual non-citizens. Whether through complicity, neglect orsheer indifference or incompetence, these home countries are‘failed states’, failures in not having providedfull rights of citizenship throughout their populations. Inconjunction with that, it will examine the standards for determiningwhen the non-state actor is a persecutor within the Conventionsense. Finally, it will set out factors to be used to test thefailed state for litigation purposes.     

The Detention of Asylum Seekers as a Crime of Obedience

This article deals with discretionary decisions made by British immigration officers about whether to detain asylum seekers. It takes as its point of departure the remarkable variety of views and practices reported by front line decision-makers interviewed at British ports (Weber and Gelsthorpe 2000; Weber and Landman 2002). The discussion begins by drawing historical parallels between the pre-Holocaust era and the present day hostility towards asylum seekers, which forms the wider context for official decision-making. It notes the failure of structural analyses to account for individual differences in rule-following and draws on theoretical perspectives developed by American social psychologists Kelman and Hamilton (1989) to explore the individual dynamics of conformity and dissent. In the concluding section, theoretical connections are made between the idea of discretionary detention as a crime of obedience, and contemporary discussion about state crime and governmentality. The underlying message of this article is as much a normative as an analytical one. While recognizing the practical limitations of individual conscience, the discussion ends, as it begins, by celebrating the emancipatory potential of dissent in the face of populist policies that sanction harm against targeted groups.     

Seeking Asylum at Embassies: A Right to Entry under International Law?

Is the processing of asylum claims at embassies and the grantof ‘humanitarian visas’ within the framework ofProtected Entry Procedures a mere expression of the politicalbenevolence on behalf of potential host states vis-à-visprotection seekers, or do both reflect legal obligations owedto the individual applicant? If so, does international law providefor a right to entry in such cases? In this article, the existenceof a legally binding right to seek asylum encompassing an entrycomponent shall be explored first together with the questionwhether any such right may have any implications on the practiceof Protected Entry Procedures. Second, the relevance of explicitprohibitions of refoulement shall be explored together withimplied protection norms of human rights law (to be found inthe ICCPR, the ECHR and the CRC). The article concludes thatthe UDHR, the EU Charter, the CSR51, the CAT and the ICCPR donot offer any right of entry in the framework of Protected EntryProcedures. However, the ECHR and the CRC do contain an impliedright to access under certain specified conditions.     

Public Reason,Neutrality and Civic Virtues

In this paper I argue that political liberalism is not the “minimalist liberalism” characterised by Michael Sandel and that it does not support the vision of public life characteristic of the procedural republic. I defend this claim by developing two points. The first concerns Rawls's account of public reason. Drawing from examples in Canadian free speech jurisprudence I show how restrictions on commercial advertising, obscenity and hate propaganda can be justified by political values. Secondly, political liberalism also attends to the identity, and not just the interests, of its citizens. It attempts to cultivate certain virtues of character. But it does so in a way that does not entail the acceptance of a comprehensive or perfectionist doctrine. Rawls's defence of neutrality of aim does not mean the state should be neutral towards all the views its citizens espouse. I conclude that political liberalism shares little with the doctrine Sandel claims is embedded in American law.     

The Paradox of Docket Control: Empowering Judges,Frustrating Refugees

This article focuses on the gradual expansion of docket control mechanisms in refugee (or asylum) law proceedings in Germany. It shows that granting judges more and more control over their asylum dockets was a central policy tool repeatedly employed by German politicians over the decades in the hope that it would stem the flow of refugees into the courts and ultimately make it easier (and faster) to deport failed claimants. Politicians were much more willing to limit access to asylum appeals than to appeals in general administrative law, illustrating how the pressure to come up with solutions for the flood of asylum applications overcame established norms for maintaining equal access to the courts for all claimants. Surprisingly, the Constitutional Court remained largely unaffected by these efforts except for a paradigm shift that occurred with the amendment of the constitutional asylum provision in 1993.     

Intersecting Issues Involving Asylum in the United States and Cases Arising Under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

The issue of immigration status has become the focal point in some cases arising under the 1980 Hague Convention on Child Abduction. Asylum claims affect both substantive and procedural issues that are presented to state and federal courts. A nexus has developed between undocumented immigrants who are parties to a Hague case, and issues of habitual residence, acclimatization, and grave risk. Asylum claims have forced courts to consider the viability of such claims, requests for stay of Hague cases pending the outcome of asylum claims, the likelihood of deportation, and the effect of grants of asylum on the particular issues in the case. Where asylum has been granted to either a parent or child, substantial consideration has been given to the asylum determination by the court hearing the Hague case.     

Asylum seeker with AIDS loses fight against relocation within the UK

An English court has upheld the decision to relocate an asylum seeker living with AIDS from London to Leeds. The court decided that the public interest in housing asylum seekers where accommodation is available outweighed the woman's interest in remaining in London, where she had an established support network, including medical care. The government has undertaken not to implement the order until her application for asylum is ruled on.     

Economic man and diffused sovereignty: a critique of Australia’s asylum regime

Governing asylum, especially in Western migration zones, is correctly understood as an expression of centralized state power, or sovereignty. Still, there is much to learn about asylum regimes by turning critical attention to how sovereignty is de-centralized. This critique focuses on Australia where sovereign power is diffused into privatized detention, outsourced decision-making, and offshore processing. The reliance on diffused sovereignty, the article contends, is a maneuver by the state as it attempts to evade legal obligations enshrined in refugee law and human rights. As discussed throughout, economic mentalities figure prominently in the Australian asylum system. In particular, the notion of economic man continues to shape the government’s perception of asylum seekers as being highly rational and responsible, thus manageable by way of deterrence and prolonged detention. Special attention is given to recent disputes between the High Court and the then Gillard government with respect to the processing of refugees.     

Seen but Not Heard? Parallels and Dissonances in the Treatment of Rape Narratives across the Asylum and Criminal Justice Contexts

A significant proportion of women seeking refugee status in the United Kingdom will claim to have been raped in their country of origin. Even where this is not the sole basis of an asylum claim, it may be relevant to its determination. While criminal justice responses to rape have been the subject of extensive academic criticism and legislative reform, the processes of disclosure and credibility assessment in the asylum context have received little attention. This article explores possible parallels and dissonances in the treatment of rape across the asylum and criminal justice contexts, drawing in particular on the findings of a 2007 pilot study. It considers how problems such as the underreporting of rape, the inability of the victim to 'tell the story' in her own words, a hostile adjudicative environment, and the tendency to regard factors such as late disclosure, narrative inconsistency, and calm demeanour with suspicion – may be replicated and compounded in asylum cases. It also acknowledges the complex intersection of race, gender, culture, and nationality in this context.     

Refugee status determination in Australia: breaking the rules?

This article looks at the asylum regime in Australia. In particular, it evaluates the procedures that are used to assess claims for asylum and the extent to which they meet international refugee and human rights standards. The article discusses four key issues in the adjudication programme: the appointment of decision-makers to tribunals that hear refugee applications, the accessibility of the review process by asylum seekers, questions relating to the efficiency of the procedures used and the mandatory detention system. It is argued that whereas Australia is party to the main international treaties that seek to protect refugees and asylum seekers, its asylum law and policy is in many ways inconsistent with international norms. To conclude, the author proposes the observance of human rights and refugee standards by asylum states. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The Oppressed, the Suspect, and the Citizen: Subjectivity in Competing Accounts of Political Violence

By juxtaposing religious, legal, and victims'accounts of political violence, this essay identifies and critiques assumptions about agency, the individual, and the smte that derive from liberal theory and that underlie U.S. asylum taw. In the United States, asylum is available to aliens whose gooernments fail to protect them from persecution on the basis of their race, religion, political opinion, nationality, or social group membership. Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrants have challenged this definition of persecution with their two-decade-long struggle for asylum in the United States. During the 1980s, U.S. religious advocates and solidarity workers took legal action on behalf of what they characterized as victims of oppression in Central America. The asylum claims narrated by the beneficiaries of these legal efforts suggest that repessiwe pactices rendered entire populations politically suspect. To prevail in immigration court, however, victims had to prove that they were individually targeted because of being somehow "different" from the population at large. In other words, to obtain asylum, persecution victims had to explain how and why their actions had placed them at risk, even though persecution obscured the reasons that particular individuals were targeted and thus rendered all politically suspect.     

Prima Facie Ought. A Logical and Methodological Enquiry

The pressing problem of prima facie validity must be treated on the basis of a differentiation of types of normative rules. Rules stating principles or purposes are always applied as views determining the decision by weighing (but not by subsumption) so that the problem of prima facie validity does not arise. Neither is there a problem of such a restricted form of validity concerning power-conferring rules. The author shows that prima facie validity of rules of behaviour must not be treated as a different kind of validity and that the notion of prima facie validity can be explained in a logically satisfactory way on the basis of traditional norm-logical considerations.     

What Lies Beneath: Exploring Links Between Asylum Policy and Hate Crime in the UK

This paper explores the link between increasing incidents of hate crime and the asylum policy of successive British governments with its central emphasis on deterrence. The constant problematisation of asylum seekers in the media and political discourse ensures that ‘anti-immigrant’ prejudice becomes mainstreamed as a common-sense response. The victims are not only the asylum seekers hoping for a better life but democratic society itself with its inherent values of pluralism and tolerance debased and destabilised.     

The Immigration and Asylum Agenda

Abstract: An area of freedom, security and justice was created by the Treaty of Maastricht of 1991/1993. Immigration and asylum of third‐country nationals was inserted into Title IV EC by the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997/1999. The European Council of Tampere of October 1999 provided a substantive input. The proposals of the European Commission cover almost all aspects of immigration and asylum and, in line with the Tampere conclusions, are oriented at the status of EU citizens. A common European migration and asylum policy has been realised at an astonishing speed, though some core instruments have not yet been adopted. During the negotiations the proposals have been watered down and thus provide only relatively low standards, in particular as regards access to employment, which is an important requisite for the integration of migrants.     

Legally Queer: The Construction of Sexuality in LGBQ Asylum Claims

Using court decisions, interviews with legal actors, and ethnographic observations, this paper analyzes the development of sexual identity classifications for sexual minorities seeking asylum in the United States and argues that the adjudication of such claims works to consolidate and regulate sexual identities but also creates possibilities for recognizing marginalized queer identities. Asylum seekers must prove their sexual identities, and immigration officials must classify claimants as belonging to a protected group. At the inception of queer asylum law in 1990, protected categories were highly circumscribed, but the indeterminacy of the law allowed advocates and asylum seekers to challenge existing categories and stake out new claims based on their sexualities. Against the backdrop of extant criticisms of the asylum process for queers, this paper suggests that the way asylum law has been elaborated, adapted, and interpreted, particularly in approximately the past decade, offers possibilities for making unique identity claims that are not recognized in existing scholarship.     

Examining Sexual Violence in the Military Within the Context of Eritrean Asylum Claims Presented in Norway

Discussion of rape by soldiers as a form of persecution haslargely been directed towards the context of war or actual conflict.Nevertheless, there is a need for attention to be directed towardsthe phenomenon of rape within the military in the post-conflictperiod. This article discusses asylum claims presented in Norwayby Eritrean female soldiers claiming risk of persecution inthe form of sexual violence, rape, or torture within the military.First, presentation is made of the history of Eritrean women'sparticipation in the war of independence and the ensuing politicaland legislative gains won at the end of the war against Ethiopia.Review of Eritrea's report and responses to the Committee onthe Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) reveala state of backlash against women in the post-conflict period.Second, examination of how rape within the military and desertionmay fall under the criteria of the definition of a refugee accordingthe 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees is pursued. Comparisonis drawn to instances of rape of women soldiers in the US andIsrael, as well as sexual violence by United Nations Missionin Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) peacekeepers, revealing commonchallenges affecting prevention and protection strategies. Third,a comparative review is conducted of evidentiary standards inorder to highlight the importance of maintaining a flexibleapproach responsive to the special circumstances of sexual violence.The Norwegian practice indicated a tendency to provide protectionfor compassionate grounds or humanitarian protection, ratherthan asylum. This resulted in non-recognition of the legitimacyof claims based on gender related persecution as requiring legalprotection under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees.