Jan6
Tacit Complicity of Non-Protection in the Maghreb: “As long as my neighbor does not protect refugees, I’ll do the same”
January 6, 2020
This Article discusses the tragedy that refugees in the Maghreb region face because the Maghreb states have chosen to hide behind security concerns instead of addressing their plight. The lack of national systems of asylum combined with the regional political instability and the absence of a regional model that can be transposed onto the individual countries aggravates the situation of refugees. As long as the Maghreb states continue to act (or rather, fail to act) on the logic that “as long as my neighbor does not protect them, I'll do the same thing,” refugees will continue to suffer in these host countries.
Read More
Dec8
Clumsy Precedents and Arbitrary Discretion: Britain’s Country Guidance System and The Obligation of Non-Refoulment
December 8, 2019
The way in which British immigration courts issue country guidance cases and use them during the well-founded fear inquiry fails to ensure that asylum applicants receive the individualized assessment that is needed to avoid returning them to countries where they risk persecution on a protected ground. Country guidance should not serve as an obstacle to claiming asylum, but rather as a way for similarly situated refugees to efficiently demonstrate prima facia cases for protection.
Read More
Nov5
A Promise as a Right
November 5, 2019
Is a refugee entitled to the same disability benefits generally as Korean nationals based on the Refugee Convention Article 24 and the Refugee Act of Korea Articles 30 and 31, without requiring further individual legislation? This was the question the Busan District and High Courts of South Korea faced in Baloch Meer Balach Muhammad Zai v. Busan-Gwangyeogsi Sasang-gucheongjang (“Meer”). In this case, the courts grappled with whether refugees were entitled to disability benefits and how to define that right, making the first major decision on refugee rights in Korea.
Read More
Sep13
Acquiescing in Refoulement: This week’s U.S. Supreme Court’s decision
September 13, 2019
Professor James C. Hathaway addresses the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Attorney General v. East Bay Sanctuary, the case pertaining to the Trump Administration's attempt to unilaterally issue a "safe third country" rule for asylum seekers.
Read More
Aug28
Compulsory Secondary Movement and Article 32 of the Refugee Convention
August 28, 2019
“Safe third countries” policies (better termed compulsory secondary movement policies) have been gaining popularity since the 1990s. Are they in compliance with Article 32 to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“the Convention”), which sets limits on contracting states’ power to deport refugees to non-persecutory countries?
Read More
Jul12
Reforming The Common European Asylum System: Business As Usual?
July 12, 2019
Twenty years ago, the European Council’s session in Tampere set out a roadmap for Europe to establish a Common European Asylum System. In recent years, asylum policy has become a contentious aspect of European Union politics. This article by Dr. Salvatore Nicolosi analyzes these developments in the context of the longer-term goal of creating a uniform recognition of asylum status in the European Union.
Read More
Jun14
The Central American Minors Program, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the International Refugee Convention
June 14, 2019
Domestic advocates have used Administrative Law to frame arguments about the International Refugee Convention. While this has resulted in a victory for those affected by the cancelation of the Central American Minors Program, administrative law cannot provide the same durable and stabilizing humanitarian system that the Convention does.
Read More
Jun6
Resolving Negusie: The Attorney General Should Recognize a Broad Duress Defense to Article 1(F)(a) and Grant Asylum
June 6, 2019
There is growing international consensus that Article 1(F)(a) of the Refugee Convention contains a duress defense. However, the U.S. Attorney General recently stayed the decision of the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals to recognize this defense and requested amici to brief on whether such a defense exists. The Attorney General should affirm the existence of a duress defense in Article 1(F)(a), incorporate the Rome Statute as the test for this defense, and resolve unsettled interpretative questions about the Statute’s elements in favor of the refugee applicant.
Read More
Jun2
Nationality as an Element of the Refugee Definition and the Unsettled Issues of ‘Inchoate Nationality’ and ‘Effective Nationality’
June 2, 2019
This is the second of a two-part article dealing with the issues of ‘inchoate nationality’ and ‘effective nationality’ in the context of determination of nationality as an element of the refugee definition.
Read More
Apr26
Love the Refugee, Hate the Group: The Troublesome Precedent of Halim
April 26, 2019
Courts around the world accept evidence of persecution of persons similarly situated to the individual applicant to help establish his or her risk of persecution. Several U.S. courts, however, diverge from this practice. Should all claims, whether based on individual experiences or on those of persons similarly situated, be evaluated under the "reasonable possibility" standard?
Read More