DOCSLIB.ORG

May 2009 a Monthly Legal Publication of the Executive Office for Immigration Review Vol 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
May 2009 a Monthly Legal Publication of the Executive Office for Immigration Review Vol 3 U.S. Department of Justice http://eoirweb/library/lib_index.htm Executive Office for Immigration Review Published since 2007 Immigration Law Advisor May 2009 A Monthly Legal Publication of the Executive Office for Immigration Review Vol 3. No.5 Assistance in Persecution Under Duress: In this issue... The Supreme Court’s Decision in Negusie v. Holder and the Misplaced Reliance on Page 1: Feature Article: Fedorenko v. United States Assistance in Persecution Under Duress: The Supreme Court’s by Brigette L. Frantz Decision in Negusie v. Holder ... Page 5: Federal Court Activity t is a difficult issue faced by the immigration courts. An individual appears in immigration court seeking asylum on account of a Page 12: BIA Precedent Decisions Istatutorily protected ground—race, religion, nationality, membership Page 13: Regulatory Update in a particular social group, or political opinion. The Immigration Judge hears testimony revealing that the respondent is fully credible and has, in fact, suffered persecution and appears eligible for asylum. Yet, the Immigration Judge finds that the respondent is statutorily barred from The Immigration Law Advisor is asylum in the United States based on his participation and assistance in the a professional monthly newsletter of the Executive Office for Immigration persecution of others. This statutory provision, more commonly referred Review (“EOIR”) that is intended to as the “persecutor bar,” precludes the granting of asylum to anyone who solely as an educational resource has “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution to disseminate information on of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a developments in immigration law particular social group, or political opinion.” Section 208(b)(2)(A)(i) of pertinent to the Immigration Courts the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(i). The and the Board of Immigration Appeals. respondent asserts in his defense that any persecutory acts he committed Any views expressed are those of the were involuntary and the result of coercion and duress. However, relying authors and do not represent the on a long history of case law, the Immigration Judge denies relief because positions of EOIR, the Department of duress is not an exception to the persecutor bar. This issue—whether there Justice, the Attorney General, or the is a duress exception to the persecutor bar—recently reached the Supreme U.S. Government. This publication contains no legal advice and may Court in Negusie v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1159 (2009). This article will explore not be construed to create or limit the history of this issue, from the incorporation of the persecutor bar into any rights enforceable by law. EOIR the Act through the Court’s decision in Negusie. will not answer questions concerning the publication’s content or how it The prohibition against granting asylum to any individual who may pertain to any individual case. persecuted another was first introduced into the Immigration and Nationality Guidance concerning proceedings Act by the Refugee Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 (“Refugee before EOIR may be found in the Act”). One primary purpose of the Refugee Act was to implement the Immigration Court Practice Manual United States obligations under the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating and/or the Board of Immigration to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. Appeals Practice Manual. 1 267, and the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating the Court’s decision in Fedorenko did not directly relate to to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 19 U.S.T. 6259, asylum. Instead, the Court granted certiorari to examine 189 U.N.T.S. 150. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. whether the circuit court had applied the appropriate 421, 436-38 (1987). Section 201(a) of the Refugee Act test in revoking the citizenship of an individual who had excluded from the definition of a “refugee” “any person served as a prison guard at a Nazi concentration camp who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in in Treblinka, Poland. However, the Court analyzed a the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, different persecutor bar containing wording similar to the nationality, membership in a particular social group, persecutor bar to asylum found in the Act and found no or political opinion.” This language was incorporated basis for an “involuntary assistance” exception. into the definitional provisions of the Act at section 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), which defines the The petitioner in Fedorenko was conscripted into term “refugee,” as well as into the asylum provisions of the the Russian Army in 1941 and was later captured by the Act at section 208(b)(2)(A), which sets forth those groups Germans. He was eventually trained as a concentration of individuals who are ineligible for asylum. camp guard and assigned to Treblinka during 1942 and 1943. Fedorenko admitted that, during his time at The plain language of the Refugee Act does not Treblinka, he had served as a perimeter guard and had articulate any exceptions to the persecutor bar, whether shot in the direction of inmates attempting to escape. based on duress or any other factor. There is no direct After an uprising by the inmates at Treblinka necessitated provision indicating whether the bar applies only to the camp’s closure, Fedorenko was transferred to another individuals who voluntarily committed persecutory acts, city where he served as a warehouse guard until just or whether an alien could be exempted from the bar if he before the British army arrived in 1945. Fedorenko then or she acted as a result of coercion or force. However, the worked as a civilian laborer in Germany for several years question whether a duress exception exists has frequently before applying for a visa to the United States under the been at issue in persecutor bar cases and has appeared in Displaced Persons Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 1009 (“DPA”). many forms. See, e.g., Singh v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 736 The DPA was enacted “to enable European refugees (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that the petitioner, a member driven from their homelands by [World War II] to of India’s police force, assisted in the persecution of Sikhs emigrate to the United States without regard to traditional despite the petitioner’s claims that he was opposed to immigration quotas.” Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 495. In his such persecution); Bah v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 348 (5th visa application, Fedorenko falsely stated that he worked Cir. 2003) (holding that the petitioner, a member of the in a factory during the war and omitted any reference to Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone, assisted in his service as a guard. Fedorenko’s false statements were persecution although he alleged he was forcibly recruited not discovered until 1977—nearly 30 years after he left into the group); see also Hajdari v. Gonzales, 186 Fed. Germany and 7 years after he had obtained United States Appx. 565 (6th Cir. 2006) (finding that the petitioner, citizenship. an Albanian prison guard, assisted in the persecution of others). The United States Government sought to revoke Fedorenko’s citizenship, alleging that he had fraudulently The immigration courts, the Board of Immigration obtained his initial DPA visa, and later his citizenship, Appeals, and the Federal circuit courts of appeals have by materially misrepresenting his military service. The all been presented with the complicated and often Government argued that Fedorenko was ineligible for his emotionally compelling question whether to bar an initial visa based on the definition of a “displaced person” individual from asylum for having assisted in persecution under the DPA, which adopted the definition contained under duress. These bodies have also all relied extensively in the Constitution of the International Refugee on the Supreme Court’s decision in Fedorenko v. United Organization of the United Nations, Dec. 15, 1946, 62 States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981), to resolve the matter. While Stat. 3037 (entered into force Aug. 20, 1948) (“IRO”). this reliance has potentially reached its end in light of the The IRO specifically excluded from the definition of Court’s Negusie decision, an understanding of Fedorenko “displaced persons” two distinct groups—in section is critical to any discussion of the persecutor bar and a 2(a) those who “assisted the enemy in persecuting civil potential duress exception. As will be discussed below, populations” and in section 2(b) those who “voluntarily 2 assisted the enemy forces.” IRO Annex I, Part II, 62 Stat. construction, the deliberate omission of at 3051-52. Relying on a witness who was an expert the word “voluntary” from § 2(a) compels on the interpretation of the DPA, the Government the conclusion that the statute made all contended that Fedorenko’s service as a Treblinka guard those who assisted in the persecution of constituted assisting the enemy in persecution, regardless civilians ineligible for visas. of whether his service was voluntary. Fedorenko claimed that his service was forced and that he had therefore not Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 512. assisted in the persecution of the concentration camp inmates. Interestingly, the United States district court The Court noted that the district court had a that initially heard the case entered judgment in favor of reason for reading a voluntariness requirement where one Fedorenko, in United States v. Fedorenko, 455 F. Supp. did not exist. The district court was “concerned that a 893 (D.C. Fla. 1978). The court found that Fedorenko’s literal interpretation of § 2(a) would bar ‘every Jewish service as a guard was forced and he could not be found to prisoner who survived Treblinka because each one of them have assisted the enemy in persecution under section 2(a) assisted the SS in the operation of the camp.’” Id.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Executive Order 14013 of February 4, 2021
    8839 Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 86, No. 25 Tuesday, February 9, 2021 Title 3— Executive Order 14013 of February 4, 2021 The President Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs To Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nation- ality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., I hereby order as follows: Section 1. Policy. The long tradition of the United States as a leader in refugee resettlement provides a beacon of hope for persecuted people around the world, promotes stability in regions experiencing conflict, and facilitates international collaboration to address the global refugee crisis. Through the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), the Federal Govern- ment, cooperating with private partners and American citizens in commu- nities across the country, demonstrates the generosity and core values of our Nation, while benefitting from the many contributions that refugees make to our country. Accordingly, it shall be the policy of my Administration that: (a) USRAP and other humanitarian programs shall be administered in a manner that furthers our values as a Nation and is consistent with our domestic law, international obligations, and the humanitarian purposes ex- pressed by the Congress in enacting the Refugee Act of 1980, Public Law 96–212. (b) USRAP should be rebuilt and expanded, commensurate with global need and the purposes described above. (c) Delays in administering USRAP and other humanitarian programs are counter to our national interests, can raise grave humanitarian concerns, and should be minimized.
    [Show full text]
  • CWS Strongly Opposes the RAISE Act, Urges Congress to Reject Anti-Family, Anti-Refugee Bill
    CWS Strongly Opposes The RAISE Act, Urges Congress to Reject Anti-Family, Anti-Refugee Bill Church World Service (CWS), a 71-year old humanitarian organization representing 37 Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox communions, strongly opposes the “Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy” (RAISE) Act. We urge all Members of Congress to reject this anti-family and anti- refugee legislation introduced by Senators Cotton (R-AR) and Perdue (R-GA) and supported by President Trump. The RAISE Act would permanently cap refugee admissions at 50,000 per year, the lowest resettlement goal in U.S. history, during the largest global refugee crisis in world history. Despite the sponsors’ citation of an arbitrary “13-year average”, the average annual resettlement goal between when Congress passed the 1980 Refugee Act and today has been 95,000, and the average number of resettled refugees has been 80,000.1 Such a drastic, permanent cut to resettlement would reduce U.S. leadership abroad and tie the hands of the State Department in key diplomatic negotiations to encourage other countries to keep their doors open to refugees and allow refugees to work and refugee children to go to school. Refugee resettlement is a cost-effective form of humanitarian relief that is a lifeline for those who cannot return to their homes or rebuild their lives in a nearby country.2 Refugees contribute meaningfully to the U.S. economy as earners and taxpayers, including more than $56 billion in spending power.3 This bill dishonors the sanctity of families and commodifies the worth of individuals by making family reunification inaccessible and essentially only permitting individuals who have certain education levels, employment, and English-language ability to enter the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Border Myths: How U.S. Policies and Practices Are Controlling the Border Narrative at the Expense of Asylum Seekers
    Woods: Border Myths: How U.S. Policies and Practices Are Controlling the Woods camera ready (Do Not Delete) 1/18/2020 12:00 PM BORDER MYTHS: HOW U.S. POLICIES AND PRACTICES ARE CONTROLLING THE BORDER NARRATIVE AT THE EXPENSE OF ASYLUM SEEKERS CINDY S. WOODS* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 82 I. TRUMP’S BORDER WALL IMPERATIVE ...................................... 84 II. INTERNATIONAL LAW OBLIGATIONS AND THE UNITED STATES’ APPROACH TO ASYLUM SEEKERS ................................... 87 A. International Law Obligations to Asylum Seekers ....... 88 1. The Non-Refoulement Principle ............................. 88 a. Non-Rejection ................................................... 89 b. Access to Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures ................................................ 90 B. U.S. Interpretations of International Obligations ........ 91 1. Exclusion of the Non-Rejection Principle ............. 92 2. Punitive Measures for Illegal Entrants ................. 93 3. Expedited Removal and the Credible Fear Process ............................................................... 94 III. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S ATTEMPTS TO CONTROL THE BORDER NARRATIVE ............................................................. 96 A. Port of Entry Denials .................................................. 96 B. CBP Abuse at the Border .......................................... 102 C. Increased Prosecution of Illegal Border Crossers ... 107 * J.D. Georgetown University Law
    [Show full text]
  • Challenging Canada's Participation in the Canada
    SETTLAGE_MACRO (DO NOT DELETE) 11/27/2012 1:25 PM INDIRECT REFOULEMENT: CHALLENGING CANADA’S PARTICIPATION IN THE CANADA-UNITED STATES SAFE THIRD COUNTRY AGREEMENT RACHEL GONZALEZ SETTLAGE* ABSTRACT In December 2004, the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) entered into effect. Pursuant to this agreement, each country recognizes the other as a safe third country in which asylum- seekers are protected from persecution and accordingly requires asylum seekers to request asylum protection in the first of whichever of the two countries they arrive. However, U.S. and Canadian refugee laws are not entirely consistent, and U.S. law and policy does not adequately protect bona fide asylum seekers from refoulement (the return of the refugee to a country in which his life or freedom would be threatened). This article argues that U.S. laws and policies that result in the refoulement of bona fide asylum seekers to their country of feared persecution violate U.S. obligations under the UN Refugee Convention. In turn, when Canada refuses to hear the claim of a bona fide asylum seeker arriving from the United States and returns that asylum seeker to the United States pursuant to the STCA, if that asylum seeker is then refouled, Canada is also responsible for violating the UN Refugee Convention. This article then explores a 2007 legal challenge to Canada’s participation in the STCA before the Canadian Federal Court, Canadian Council for Refugees et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, which was ultimately unsuccessful on appeal. However, in a March 2011 decision, John Doe et al.
    [Show full text]
  • How REAL ID's Credibility and Corroboration Requirements Impair
    CONROY_MACRO2 (DO NOT DELETE) 4/20/2009 9:47:08 AM Real Bias: How REAL ID’s Credibility and Corroboration Requirements Impair Sexual Minority Asylum Applicants Melanie A. Conroy† I. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................2 II. SEXUAL MINORITIES AND THE LAW OF ASYLUM.......................................3 III. PRE-REAL ID CREDIBILITY AND CORROBORATION LAW AND PROBLEMS..................................................................................................5 A. Pre-Real ID Corroboration Law......................................................... 5 B. Pre-Real ID Corroboration Problems................................................. 7 i. Corroborating the Persecution of Similarly-Situated Individuals ...................................................................................8 ii. Corroborating One’s Sexual Minority Membership ..................10 C. Pre-Real ID Credibility Law............................................................ 11 D. Pre-Real ID Credibility Problems .................................................... 13 i. Airport Statements .....................................................................13 ii. The Social Visibility Requirement: Demeanor, Plausibility, and Consistency .........................................................................15 iii. Social Constructions of Gender and Sexuality: External Consistency................................................................................18 IV. REAL ID: ITS HISTORY, CONTENT,
    [Show full text]
  • Fulfilling US Commitment to Refugee Resettlement
    Texas A&M Law Review Volume 5 Issue 1 1-12-2018 Fulfilling U.S. Commitment ot Refugee Resettlement: Protecting Refugees, Preserving National Security, & Building the U.S. Economy Through Refugee Admissions Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview Part of the Civil Law Commons, Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, International Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legislation Commons, Nonprofit Organizations Law Commons, Other Law Commons, Other Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons, Peace and Conflict Studies Commons, Public Affairs Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, Public Policy Commons, Social Policy Commons, Social Welfare Commons, Social Welfare Law Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Fulfilling U.S. Commitment ot Refugee Resettlement: Protecting Refugees, Preserving National Security, & Building the U.S. Economy Through Refugee Admissions, 5 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 155 (2018). Available at: https://doi.org/10.37419/LR.V5.I1.5 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Texas A&M Law Review by an authorized editor of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\T\TWL\5-1\TWL106.txt unknown Seq: 1 29-DEC-17 8:20 REPORT FULFILLING U.S. COMMITMENT TO REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT: PROTECTING REFUGEES, PRESERVING NATIONAL SECURITY, & BUILDING THE U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Rauma at the Border: the Human Cost of Inhumane Immigration Policies
    U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS TRAUMA AT THE BORDER THE HUMAN COST OF INHUMANE IMMIGRATION POLICIES BRIEFING REPORT U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Washington, DC 20425 Official Business OCTOBER 2019 Penalty for Private Use $300 Visit us on the Web: www.usccr.gov U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an Catherine E. Lhamon, Chairperson* independent, bipartisan agency established Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Vice Chairperson by Congress in 1957. It is directed to: Debo P. Adegbile Gail L. Heriot • Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are Peter N. Kirsanow being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their David Kladney race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national Karen Narasaki origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices. Michael Yaki • Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution Mauro Morales, Staff Director because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW • Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to Washington, DC 20425 discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or (202) 376-8128 voice national origin, or in the administration of justice. TTY Relay: 711 • Serve as a national clearinghouse for information www.usccr.gov in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. • Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Brief of Organizations Representing Asylum Seekers
    Case 3:17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC Document 223-2 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.4761 Page 1 of 20 EXHIBIT A Case 3:17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC Document 223-2 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.4762 Page 2 of 20 1 MICHAEL D. KIBLER (Bar No. 243982) [email protected] 2 DANIELLE E. HESSE (Bar No. 318321) [email protected] 3 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars – 29th Floor 4 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 407-7500 5 Facsimile: (310) 407-7502 Counsel for Amici Curiae 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN DIEGO DIVISION 10 AL OTRO LADO, INC., a California Case No. 3:17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC corporation, et al., 11 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF Plaintiffs, NINETEEN ORGANIZATIONS 12 REPRESENTING ASYLUM v. SEEKERS 13 KIRSTEN M. NIELSEN, Secretary, 14 United States Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF Exhibit A CASE NO. 3:17-CV-02366-BAS-KSC Page 1 Case 3:17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC Document 223-2 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.4763 Page 3 of 20 1 I. INTRODUCTION AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE 2 Amici are nineteen non-profit organizations1 dedicated to ensuring the 3 equitable treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers. In this capacity, they have 4 developed an interest and expertise in the unique issues facing migrants, particularly 5 those from Central America. Amici have observed with considerable alarm the 6 myriad ways in which Defendants have sought to limit or foreclose access to the 7 asylum process through a variety of practices including what Plaintiffs allege 8 amounts to a Turnback Policy,2 which has forced people fleeing persecution to wait 9 in dangerous conditions on the Mexican side of the southern border.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of U.S. Refugee Resettlement Programs and Library of Congress
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 206 779 OD 021 643 AUTHOR Moore, Charlotte J. TITLE Review of U.S. Refugee Resettlement Programs and Policies. A Report. Revised. INSTITUT:ON Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Congressional Research Service. REPORT NO SR-052-070-05409-3 PUB DATE 80 NOTE 350p.: Prepared at the request of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 96th Congress, 2nd Session. Not available in paper copy due to reproduction quality of original document. AVAILABLE FROM Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 ($6.50). EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Cubans: *Federal Legislation: *Federal Programs: *Immigrants: Indochinese: *Land Settlement; *Refugees: *Relocation: Social Services IDENTIFIERS Chileans: Hungarians: Kurds: Russians ABSTRACT This government report reviews U.S. refugee resettlement programs and policies. Part I of the book provides an overview of b.S. refugee admissions programs and discusses refugee admissions policies for two time frames: 1945 to 1965, and 1965 to the present. In Part II an analysis of Federal assistance programs for do'estic resettlement of refugees is found. This section describes assistance offered to refugees resettling in the U.S. and the legislation and programs authorizing such assistance. The Refugee Act of 1980 is covered in Part III. Major issues of the act are outlined along with its legislative history. The section concludes with a section-by-section summary of the Act. Appendices contain the complete text of the 1980 Refugee Act, a conference report and analysis of the Act, and a report on refugee resettlement in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Non-Penalization, Detention and Protection
    Article 31 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees: Non-penalization, Detention and Protection Guy S. Goodwin-Gill Professor of International Refugee Law University of Oxford Member of the English Bar A paper prepared at the request of the Department of International Protection for the UNHCR Global Consultations October 2001 Table of Contents 1. Article 31: Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge ......................1 1.1 Introduction ...................................................1 1.2 Problems arising and scope of the paper .............................3 2. Article 31: The Origins of the Text .......................................3 2.1 The Ad hoc Committee ...........................................4 2.2 Discussions at the 1951 Conference ................................5 2.3 The meaning of terms: Some preliminary views .......................8 3. Incorporation of the principle in national law ..............................11 3.1 National legislation ............................................11 Switzerland ...................................................11 United Kingdom ...............................................12 United States of America ........................................12 Belize .......................................................13 Finland ......................................................13 Ghana .......................................................14 Lesotho ......................................................14 Malawi ......................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
    U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy William A. Kandel Analyst in Immigration Policy February 9, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43145 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Summary Family reunification has historically been a key principle underlying U.S. immigration policy. It is embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which specifies numerical limits for five family-based immigration categories, as well as a per-country limit on total family-based immigration. The five categories include immediate relatives (spouses, minor unmarried children, and parents) of U.S. citizens and four other family-based categories that vary according to individual characteristics such as the legal status of the petitioning U.S.-based relative, and the age, family relationship, and marital status of the prospective immigrant. Of the 1,183,505 foreign nationals admitted to the United States in FY2016 as lawful permanent residents (LPRs), 804,793, or 68%, were admitted on the basis of family ties. Of the family-based immigrants admitted in FY2016, 70% were admitted as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Many of the 1,183,505 immigrants were initially admitted on a nonimmigrant (temporary) visa and became immigrants by converting or “adjusting” their status to a lawful permanent resident. The proportion of family-based immigrants who adjusted their immigration status while residing in the United States (34%) was substantially less than that of family-based immigrants who had their immigration petitions processed while living abroad (66%), although such percentages varied considerably among the five family-based immigration categories. Since FY2000, increasing numbers of immediate relatives of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Pdf
    Immigration And Refugee Protection Act Pdf faithlessly.When Claude Unforeseeable bowl his prehnite and cephalic bias not Xerxes invulnerably bituminizing enough, her is espressoNicholas tall?conferred Regardant happily and or matedmum afloat, Umberto is Andy still truss paroxysmal? his leagues Samuel Hyman Burns Fitzpatrick LLP. Refugee Act 1996 unofficial restatement updated to 2004 PDF 16KB. CanadaImmigration and Refugee Protection Act. Will bring longer fund immigration refugee matters Feds provide. Legislation for immigration asylum & citizenship INIS. While preparing data showing that a visa prior to expand into english language barriers in years in? For excellent of reference decisions rendered before the coming onto force said the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act SC 2001 c27 are no. Draft legislation should commission a protection act and. Secretary and for applicants in numerous immigration and taking law cases v 1992-1996 Crown Prosecutor Senior Crown Prosecutor CPS Tower. And Centers for integral Control and Prevention CDC published a final rule. IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE law AND POLICY 1115-17 5th ed. All or freedom center of the catholic, and refugee law, is part of. Table 11 Free legal species for applicants for refugee ACNUR. For all purposes of interpreting and applying law to getting legal issue or fraud please consult the original Japanese texts published in the Official Gazette. The Refugee law Office of Refugee Resettlement ACF. Canadian Law PDFCanadian Immigration and interpret Law A Practitioner's Canadian Immigration and harsh Law as Legal Canadian Bar Association. Bill C-11 The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act offer of. Printer-friendly Email this Article Download PDF REPRINTS PERMISSIONS.
    [Show full text]