DOCSLIB.ORG

February 2021 Bi RELIEF from REMOVAL Table of Contents ASYLUM, WITHHOLDING of REMOVAL and the CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
February 2021 Bi RELIEF from REMOVAL Table of Contents ASYLUM, WITHHOLDING of REMOVAL and the CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE RELIEF FROM REMOVAL Table of Contents ASYLUM, WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL and the CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE .................................................................................................................1 I. THE CONTEXT ..............................................................................................1 II. ASYLUM ........................................................................................................3 A. Burden of Proof .....................................................................................3 B. Defining Persecution .............................................................................5 1. Cumulative Effect of Harms ....................................................... 6 2. No Subjective Intent to Harm Required ..................................... 7 3. Forms of Persecution .................................................................. 7 a. Physical Violence ............................................................. 7 (i) Physical Violence Sufficient to Constitute Persecution ............................................................. 9 (ii) Physical Violence Insufficient to Constitute Persecution ...........................................................11 b. Torture ............................................................................11 c. Threats ............................................................................12 (i) Cases Holding Threats Establish Persecution ......12 (ii) Cases Holding Threats Not Persecution ...............14 d. Detention .........................................................................14 e. Mental, Emotional, and Psychological Harm .................15 f. Substantial Economic Deprivation .................................16 g. Discrimination and Harassment .....................................17 4. Age of the Victim ......................................................................19 C. Source or Agent of Persecution ...........................................................19 1. Harm Inflicted by Relatives ......................................................21 2. Reporting of Persecution Not Always Required.......................21 February 2021 B-i 3. Cases Discussing Source or Agent of Persecution ...................23 D. Past Persecution ...................................................................................24 1. Presumption of a Well-Founded Fear .......................................26 2. Rebutting the Presumption of a Well-Founded Fear ................27 a. Fundamental Change in Circumstances .........................27 b. Government’s Burden .....................................................28 (i) State Department Report ......................................29 (ii) Administrative Notice of Changed Country Conditions ............................................................30 c. Cases where Changed Circumstances or Conditions Insufficient to Rebut Presumption of Well-Founded Fear ........................................................................................31 d. Internal Relocation..........................................................32 3. Humanitarian Asylum ...............................................................34 a. Severe Past Persecution ..................................................35 (i) Compelling Cases of Past Persecution for Humanitarian Asylum ..........................................35 (ii) Insufficiently Severe Past Persecution for Humanitarian Asylum ..........................................36 b. Fear of Other Serious Harm............................................37 E. Well-Founded Fear of Persecution ......................................................38 1. Past Persecution Not Required..................................................39 2. Subjective Prong .......................................................................39 3. Objective Prong .........................................................................40 4. Demonstrating a Well-Founded Fear ........................................42 a. Targeted for Persecution .................................................42 b. Family Ties .....................................................................42 c. Pattern and Practice of Persecution ................................43 d. Membership in Disfavored Group ..................................44 February 2021 B-ii 5. Countrywide Persecution ..........................................................45 6. Continued Presence of Applicant..............................................47 7. Continued Presence of Family ..................................................48 8. Possession of Passport or Travel Documents ...........................49 9. Safe Return to Country of Persecution .....................................50 10. Cases Finding No Well-Founded Fear ......................................50 F. Nexus to the Five Statutorily Protected Grounds ................................51 1. Proving a Nexus ........................................................................52 a. Direct Evidence ..............................................................53 b. Circumstantial Evidence .................................................53 2. Mixed-Motive Cases .................................................................55 3. Shared Identity Between Victim and Persecutor ......................58 4. Civil Unrest and Motive ............................................................58 5. Resistance to Discriminatory Government Action ...................59 6. The Protected Grounds .............................................................59 a. Race ................................................................................59 (i) Cases Finding Racial or Ethnic Persecution ........60 (ii) Cases Finding No Racial or Ethnic Persecution ..60 b. Religion ...........................................................................61 (i) Cases Finding Religious Persecution ...................62 (ii) Cases Finding No Religious Persecution .............63 c. Nationality ......................................................................63 d. Membership in a Particular Social Group ......................64 (i) Types of Social Groups ........................................68 (A) Family and Clan .........................................68 (B) Gender-Related Claims ..............................68 (C) Sexual Orientation .....................................70 (D) Former Status or Occupation .....................71 February 2021 B-iii (ii) Cases Denying Social Group Claims ...................72 e. Political Opinion .............................................................73 (i) Organizational Membership .................................74 (ii) Refusal to Support Organization ..........................75 (iii) Labor Union Membership and Activities .............75 (iv) Opposition to Government Corruption ................76 (v) Neutrality ..............................................................79 (vi) Other Expressions of Political Opinion ................79 (vii) Imputed Political Opinion ....................................80 (A) Family Association ....................................80 (B) No Evidence of Legitimate Prosecutorial Purpose .......................................................81 (C) Government Employees .............................82 (D) Other Cases Discussing Imputed Political Opinion .......................................................82 (viii) Opposition to Coercive Population Control Policies .................................................................84 (A) Forced Abortion .........................................85 (B) Forced Sterilization ....................................86 (C) Other Resistance to a Coercive Population Control Policy ............................................87 (D) Family Members ........................................88 f. Prosecution .....................................................................89 (i) Pretextual Prosecution ..........................................90 (ii) Illegal Departure Laws .........................................90 g. Military and Conscription Issues ....................................91 (i) Conscription Generally Not Persecution ..............91 (ii) Exceptions ............................................................92 (A) Disproportionately Severe Punishment .....92 February 2021 B-iv (B) Inhuman Conduct .......................................92 (C) Moral or Religious Grounds ......................93 (iii) Participation in Coup ............................................93 (iv) Military Informers ................................................93 (v) Military or Law Enforcement Membership .........93 (A) Current Status .............................................93 (B) Former Status .............................................94 (vi) Non-Governmental Conscription .........................94 h. Cases Concluding No Nexus to a Protected Ground ......95 G. Exercise of Discretion .........................................................................96 H. Remanding Under INS v. Ventura .......................................................98 I. Derivative Asylees ............................................................................101 J. Bars to Asylum ..................................................................................102 1. One-Year Bar ..........................................................................102 a. Exceptions to the Deadline ...........................................104
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Eastern Front and the Struggle Against Marginalization
    3 The Eastern Front and the Struggle against Marginalization By John Young Copyright The Small Arms Survey Published in Switzerland by the Small Arms Survey The Small Arms Survey is an independent research project located at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, Switzerland. It serves © Small Arms Survey, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva 2007 as the principal source of public information on all aspects of small arms and First published in May 2007 as a resource centre for governments, policy-makers, researchers, and activ- ists. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior Established in 1999, the project is supported by the Swiss Federal Depart- permission in writing of the Small Arms Survey, or as expressly permitted by ment of Foreign Affairs, and by contributions from the Governments of Bel- law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organi- gium, Canada, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the zation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should United Kingdom. The Survey is also grateful for past and current project-spe- be sent to the Publications Manager, Small Arms Survey, at the address below. cific support received from Australia, Denmark, and New Zealand. Further Small Arms Survey funding has been provided by the United Nations Development Programme, Graduate Institute of International Studies the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, the Geneva 47 Avenue Blanc, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland International Academic Network, and the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Apply for a Three Or Ten Year Cancellation of Removal
    HOW TO APPLY FOR THREE OR TEN YEAR CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL WARNING: This booklet provides general information about immigration law and does not cover individual cases. Immigration law changes often, and you should try to consult with an immigration attorney or legal agency to get the most recent information. Also, you can represent yourself in immigration proceedings, but it is always better to get help from a lawyer or legal agency if possible. NOTE: As of March 1, 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Immigration enforcement functions, including immigration detention and removal cases, are handled by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will handle other immigration matters, including citizenship, asylum and refugee services. • GENERAL INFORMATION • Who wrote this booklet? This booklet was prepared by the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, a non- profit law office that supports human and civil rights. The money to pay for this booklet came from the Ford Foundation. This booklet was updated in November, 2007 with money from the Executive Office for Immigration Review. This booklet was not prepared by DHS, or by any other part of the United States government. The booklet contains information and advice based on the Florence Project’s many years of experience assisting people in immigration detention. Immigration law, unfortunately, is not always clear, and our understanding of the law may not always be the same as DHS’s viewpoint. We believe that the information is correct and helpful, but the fact that this booklet is made available in the libraries of detention centers for the use of detainees does not mean that DHS or any other branch of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No-_____ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States YOLANDA SANCHEZ-OCHOA, JOSE PEREZ-MURILLO, AND HECTOR PEREZ-SANCHEZ, Petitioners, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BLAKE P. SOMERS COUNSEL OF RECORD BLAKE P. SOMERS, LLC 114 E. 8th Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 513.587.2892 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners i QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioners seek asylum in the United States after receiving threats on their life from gang members. Petitioners’ neighbors had received similar threats, and were brutally murdered when they refused to comply with the gang’s demands. The Petitioners fled Mexico to escape death. The immigration judge found the Petitioners credible, and all agency and court decisions have recognized that this nuclear family faces a true, clear, and present danger to their safety and welfare upon their return to Mexico. But all agencies and courts have rejected Petitioners’ claims, finding, among other things, that Petitioners’ proposed “particular social group” was not cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality Act. At issue in this case is the Board of Immigration Appeals’ standard for determining when an applicant claims membership in a particular social group as a basis for asylum per 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). In Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985), the Board of Immigration Appeals held a particular social group (PSG) must share an immutable characteristic. In a series of cases in 2008 and 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals added two requirements to this standard: a group must be socially visible or distinct, and it must be sufficiently particular.
    [Show full text]
  • Sunni – Shi`A Relations and the Implications for Belgium and Europe
    FEARING A ‘SHIITE OCTOPUS’ SUNNI – SHI`A RELATIONS AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR BELGIUM AND EUROPE EGMONT PAPER 35 FEARING A ‘SHIITE OCTOPUS’ Sunni – Shi`a relations and the implications for Belgium and Europe JELLE PUELINGS January 2010 The Egmont Papers are published by Academia Press for Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations. Founded in 1947 by eminent Belgian political leaders, Egmont is an independent think-tank based in Brussels. Its interdisciplinary research is conducted in a spirit of total academic freedom. A platform of quality information, a forum for debate and analysis, a melting pot of ideas in the field of international politics, Egmont’s ambition – through its publications, seminars and recommendations – is to make a useful contribution to the decision- making process. *** President: Viscount Etienne DAVIGNON Director-General: Marc TRENTESEAU Series Editor: Prof. Dr. Sven BISCOP *** Egmont - The Royal Institute for International Relations Address Naamsestraat / Rue de Namur 69, 1000 Brussels, Belgium Phone 00-32-(0)2.223.41.14 Fax 00-32-(0)2.223.41.16 E-mail [email protected] Website: www.egmontinstitute.be © Academia Press Eekhout 2 9000 Gent Tel. 09/233 80 88 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.academiapress.be J. Story-Scientia NV Wetenschappelijke Boekhandel Sint-Kwintensberg 87 B-9000 Gent Tel. 09/225 57 57 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.story.be All authors write in a personal capacity. Lay-out: proxess.be ISBN 978 90 382 1538 9 D/2010/4804/17 U 1384 NUR1 754 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the permission of the publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • ERITREA Mahmoud Ahmed Chehem (M), Aged 21, Army Soldier Estifanos Solomon (M), Army Driver Two Male Army Officers (Names Not Known)
    PUBLIC AI Index: AFR 64/001/2005 07 January 2005 UA 03/05 Forcible return / Fear of torture or ill-treatment / Detention without charge or trial ERITREA Mahmoud Ahmed Chehem (m), aged 21, army soldier Estifanos Solomon (m), army driver Two male army officers (names not known) Mahmoud Ahmed Chehem, Estifanos Solomon and two army officers were reportedly forcibly returned from Djibouti to Eritrea on 28 December 2004. They are being detained without charge at an unknown location and are at risk of torture or ill-treatment. Mahmoud Ahmed Chehem is a member of the Afar ethnic group which inhabits areas in both Djibouti and Eritrea. He was born in Djibouti, although his family live in Eritrea. On 26 December he and the three other men drove from the southwest Eritrean town of Assab to Obock town in Djibouti, where they were detained by the Djiboutian army. Mahmoud Ahmed Chehem was refused permission to stay in Djibouti, despite being a Djiboutian citizen. The three other men reportedly requested asylum in Djibouti but were summarily handed over to Eritrean military officers on 28 December, who forcibly returned them to Eritrea the same day. The three were denied the right to have their asylum application properly determined or to contact the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) office in Djibouti. Mahmoud Ahmed Chehem was unlawfully conscripted into the Eritrean army as a child soldier in 1997 when he was 14 years old. He had unsuccessfully applied recently to be demobilized on medical grounds after receiving eye injuries and shrapnel wounds during the 1998-2000 war with Ethiopia.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran's Sunnis Resist Extremism, but for How Long?
    Atlantic Council SOUTH ASIA CENTER ISSUE BRIEF Iran’s Sunnis Resist Extremism, but for How Long? APRIL 2018 SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI ome fifteen million of Iran’s eighty million people are Sunni Muslims, the country’s largest religious minority. Politically and economically disadvantaged, these Sunnis receive relatively lit- tle attention compared with other minorities and are concen- Strated in border areas from Baluchistan in the southeast, to Kurdistan in the northwest, to the Persian Gulf in the south. The flare up of tensions between regional rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran over Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen would seem to encourage interest in the state of Iranian Sunnis, if only because the Saudis present them- selves as defenders of the world’s Sunnis, and Iran the self-appointed champion of the Shia cause. So how do Iran’s Sunnis fare in a state where Shia theology governs al- most every aspect of life? How have they been affected by this regional rivalry? Are they stuck between jihadist and other extreme regional Sunni movements on the one hand, and the Shia regime’s aggres- sive policies on the other? Is there a danger that these policies could push some disgruntled Iranian Sunnis toward militancy and terrorism? A tour of Turkmen Sahra in the northeast of Iran near the Caspian Sea, and in Hormozgan on the Persian Gulf in 2015 and 2016 revealed some of the answers. More recent interviews were conducted by phone and in person in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and with European-based experts. “Being a Sunni in Iran means pain, fear, anxiety, restrictions,”1 said a young The Atlantic Council’s South woman in a southern Hormozgan village.
    [Show full text]
  • New York State DREAM Act Application
    Step-by-Step User Guide to completing the New York State DREAM Act Application This user guide breaks down the New York State DREAM Act eligibility application and clarifies why certain questions are asked, how to answer each question accurately, and what documentation must be provided to verify your eligibility. Table of Contents Overview of Applications ........................................................................................................................... 3 The New York State DREAM Act Eligibility Requirements .............................................................. 3 NYS DREAM Act Application ................................................................................................................... 5 Student High School Education Details .............................................................................................. 5 High School Status ............................................................................................................................. 5 High School Completion .................................................................................................................... 7 Student Citizenship and Immigration Status ...................................................................................... 8 Social Security Number (SSN) or Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN): .............................. 10 Student Information .............................................................................................................................. 10 Student
    [Show full text]
  • Form I-881, Application for Suspension of Deportation
    Application for Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant to Section 203 of Public Law 105-100, NACARA) USCIS Form I-881 Department of Homeland Security OMB No. 1615-0072 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Expires 11/30/2021 What Is the Purpose of Form I-881? This application is used by any alien eligible to apply for suspension of deportation or special rule cancellation of removal under section 203 of Public Law 105-100, the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA 203). If you are in immigration proceedings before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and are not eligible to apply for suspension of deportation or special rule cancellation of removal under section 203 of NACARA because you do not meet the criteria listed below, you must use Form EOIR-40, Application for Suspension of Deportation (if you are in deportation proceedings) or Form EOIR-42B, Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents (if you are in removal proceedings). WARNING: Applicants who are in the United States illegally are subject to deportation or removal if their suspension of deportation or special rule cancellation of removal claims are not granted by an asylum officer, an immigration judge, or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). We may use any information you provide in completing this application as a basis for placing you in immigration proceedings before an immigration judge or as evidence in these proceedings, even if you withdraw your application later. If you have any concerns about this process, you may want to consult with an attorney or representative before you submit this application to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Confronting Discrimination in the Post-9/11 Era: Challenges and Opportunities Ten Years Later
    Confronting Discrimination in the Post-9/11 Era: Challenges and Opportunities Ten Years Later A Report on the Civil Rights Division’s Post-9/11 Civil Rights Summit Hosted by George Washington University Law School October 19, 2011 “The President’s pledge for a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim community takes root here in the Justice Department where we are committed to using criminal and civil rights laws to protect Muslim Americans. A top priority of this Justice Department is a return to robust civil rights enforcement and outreach in defending religious freedoms and other fundamental rights of all of our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the housing market, in our schools and in the voting booth.” -Attorney General Eric Holder “Today, we are simply using the long-standing tools in our arsenal to address an emerging challenge that threatens the freedom of individuals who want nothing more than for their families to be accepted in their communities, to live their lives and practice their faith in peace, and to realize the American Dream. We will continue to use every available tool in our law enforcement arsenal to transform this headwind of intolerance into a tailwind of inclusion and opportunity.” -Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas E. Perez Table of Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Opening Remarks: Paul Schiff Berman, Dean and Robert Kramer Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Remarks: James Cole, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice Looking Back: The Post-9/11 Backlash ............................................................................4 Panelists: Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Department of Justice; Stuart J.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 16-991 In the Supreme Court of the United States JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, ATTORNEY GENERAL, PETITIONER v. ALTIN BASHKIM SHUTI ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI NOEL J. FRANCISCO Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General EDWIN S. KNEEDLER Deputy Solicitor General ROBERT A. PARKER Assistant to the Solicitor General DONALD E. KEENER BRYAN S. BEIER Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provisions governing an alien’s removal from the United States, is unconstitu- tionally vague. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below ................................................................................ 1 Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 1 Statement ......................................................................................... 2 Argument ......................................................................................... 5 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 6 Appendix A — Court of appeals opinion (July 7, 2016) .............................................. 1a Appendix B — Board of Immigration Appeals decision (July 24, 2015) .......................................... 22a Appendix C
    [Show full text]
  • Particularized Social Groups and Categorical Imperatives in Refugee
    American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law Volume 23 Issue 4 Article 2 2015 Particularized Social Groups and Categorical Imperatives in Refugee Law: State Failures to Recognize Gender and the Legal Reception of Gender Persecution Claims in Canada, The United Kingdom, and the United States Melanie Randall The University of Western Ontario, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/jgspl Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, International Law Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Recommended Citation Randall, Melanie (2015) "Particularized Social Groups and Categorical Imperatives in Refugee Law: State Failures to Recognize Gender and the Legal Reception of Gender Persecution Claims in Canada, The United Kingdom, and the United States," American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law: Vol. 23 : Iss. 4 , Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/jgspl/vol23/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Randall: Particularized Social Groups and Categorical Imperatives in Refug PARTICULARIZED SOCIAL GROUPS AND CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES IN REFUGEE LAW: STATE FAILURES TO RECOGNIZE GENDER AND THE LEGAL RECEPTION OF GENDER PERSECUTION CLAIMS IN CANADA, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND THE UNITED STATES MELANIE RANDALL, PH.D., LL.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends
    Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends Updated February 3, 2015 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R43892 Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends Summary The ability to remove foreign nationals (aliens) who violate U.S. immigration law is central to the immigration enforcement system. Some lawful migrants violate the terms of their admittance, and some aliens enter the United States illegally, despite U.S. immigration laws and enforcement. In 2012, there were an estimated 11.4 million resident unauthorized aliens; estimates of other removable aliens, such as lawful permanent residents who commit crimes, are elusive. With total repatriations of over 600,000 people in FY2013—including about 440,000 formal removals—the removal and return of such aliens have become important policy issues for Congress, and key issues in recent debates about immigration reform. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides broad authority to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to remove certain foreign nationals from the United States, including unauthorized aliens (i.e., foreign nationals who enter without inspection, aliens who enter with fraudulent documents, and aliens who enter legally but overstay the terms of their temporary visas) and lawfully present foreign nationals who commit certain acts that make them removable. Any foreign national found to be inadmissible or deportable under the grounds specified in the INA may be ordered removed. The INA describes procedures for making and reviewing such a determination, and specifies conditions under which certain grounds of removal may be waived. DHS officials may exercise certain forms of discretion in pursuing removal orders, and certain removable aliens may be eligible for permanent or temporary relief from removal.
    [Show full text]