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 MoreThis 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 MoreCourts 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 MoreOn June 29, 2018, RefLaw Writer B.A. Bacigal interviewed Hardy Vieux, vice president (Legal) at Human Rights First (HRF) about his perspective on current issues in refugee and asylum law. What follows is an edited version of that interview. The views and opinions represented are solely Hardy’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Human Rights First.
Read MoreOnce host states are aware of, and willing to act on, the deficiencies in their current stance surrounding the persecuting state’s responsibility, it could bring an adversarial suit before an international court, specifically the ICJ. The answer to lacking state responsibility may lie in utilizing diplomatic protection’s pragmatic approach.
Read MoreOn December 3, 2018, acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker certified a Board of Immigration Appeals decision to himself to address the validity of asylum claims based on membership in a family unit. Despite precedent recognizingthe family unit as a valid particular social group, advocates are rightly concerned that the Attorney General may be attempting to undermine this area of U.S. asylum law.
Read MoreCameroon has taken to expelling refugees seeking relief from violence at the hands of Boko Haram on the pretense of national security, fearing that Boko Haram has infiltrated its borders. Cameroon’s mass expulsions without more process for individuals violates the country’s obligations under the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Furthermore, there is little evidence that this policy effectively enhances national or regional security.
Read MoreThe Trump administration is metering the number of individuals who are allowed to enter the United States and apply for asylum at points of entry, and prohibiting anyone who enters unlawfully without inspection from receiving asylum. This new border regime violates the United States' obligations under the 1967 Protocol to not refoul refugees to unsafe countries and not punish refugees for unlawful entrance.
Read MoreThe consistent reference approach to CFHR is a more balanced way to adjudicate stateless applicants. The consistent approach may also aid in keeping well-founded fear and protection inquiries separate.
Read MoreOctober 19, 2018 Lauren Nishimura RefLaw, Editorial Advisory Panel Oxford University, Doctoral Candidate Climate change is a reality, producing both extreme weather events like cyclones and storms and slower processes...
Read More