U.S. attorney general curbs asylum for immigrant victims of violence

By Reade Levinson and Sarah N. Lynch

 

FILE PHOTO - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivers remarks at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund’s 30th annual candlelight vigil in Washington, U.S., May 13, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday overturned a ruling granting asylum to a Salvadoran woman raped and beaten by her former husband, a decision that could have a major impact on immigrants seeking refuge from violence in their home countries.

 

The decision narrows who can qualify for asylum when they become victims of private criminal activity, such as gang and domestic violence, as opposed to government persecution.

 

Sessions' finding followed his unusual move to intervene personally in the case, known as the "Matter of A-B-." The woman, who is only identified by her initials, had won an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which overturned a lower immigration court judge's denial of her asylum petition.

 

"In reaching these conclusions, I do not minimize the vile abuse that the respondent reported she suffered at the hands of her ex-husband," Sessions wrote in his order.

 

"I understand that many victims of domestic violence may seek to flee from their home countries to extricate themselves from a dire situation or to give themselves the opportunity for a better life," he continued. "But the 'asylum statute is not a general hardship statute,'" he said, citing an old immigration case.

 

The woman could still potentially appeal the case to a federal appeals court and, should that bid fail, the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Sessions' decision drew immediate rebuke from immigrant rights advocates and lawyers.

 

“Attorney General Sessions’ decision to limit the reasons why people can claim asylum is a devastating blow to families who come to our country seeking protection and safety," said Michelle Brané, director of the Women's Refugee Commission's Migrant Rights and Justice programme headquartered in New York.

 

"This administration continues to swiftly deconstruct America’s moral code and values by doing everything possible to limit access to asylum."

 

Unlike the federal judiciary system, U.S. immigration courts fall under the Justice Department's jurisdiction, and the attorney general can intervene.

 

In immigration court, certain opinions published by the Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest immigration court, serve to set national legal precedent. However, as the United States' chief law enforcement officer, the attorney general can intercede in its decisions to shape law.

 

Sessions has been unusually active in this practice compared to his predecessors by exercising his intervention authority to make it harder for some people to legally remain in the United States.

 

In making his determination, he declared that a decision in a 2014 case before the Board of Immigration Appeals, which allowed victims of gender-based violence to claim asylum in the United States, “was wrongly decided and should not have been issued as a precedential decision.”

 

He then remanded the case of A-B- back to Judge Stuart Couch in Charlotte, North Carolina, for further proceedings.

 

An investigation by Reuters last year found that Couch orders immigrants deported 89 percent of the time.

 

Monday's decision marks the latest effort by Sessions to greatly restrict immigration. Cracking down on illegal immigration and tightening legal immigration was a major theme of President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.

 

Earlier this year, Sessions declared he would attempt to ensure that every person who crosses the border illegally would be prosecuted, and he has staunchly defended a new policy of separating women and children at the border, including those seeking asylum.

 

(Reporting by Reade Levinson and Sarah N. Lynch, additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg, editing by G Crosse and Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-06-12

I agree with that decision, so every person, men and women can claim now that that they have been abused and ask for asylum? there are millions of people all over the world that are mistreated by their spouses, so everyone has the right to ask for asylum now? what constitutes spousal abuse?  and where do you draw the line at what is an abuse and what not? this is a domestic issues that should be handled by the local authorities...

And America is the moral leader of the world? ?

In general, cases of spousal abuse would not be considered as grounds for refugee status, although any country can expand on the UN conventions.   Abuse can be a part of a refugee claim, if the person can show that they are discriminated against in receiving protection by the government.  

 

I have never worked with anyone given asylum based on spousal abuse, but I have seen people given it for not being given ordinary protection from violence by the gov't, that is afforded to others.  

1 hour ago, Scott said:

In general, cases of spousal abuse would not be considered as grounds for refugee status, although any country can expand on the UN conventions.   Abuse can be a part of a refugee claim, if the person can show that they are discriminated against in receiving protection by the government.  

 

I have never worked with anyone given asylum based on spousal abuse, but I have seen people given it for not being given ordinary protection from violence by the gov't, that is afforded to others.  

Thanks for that contribution Scott, welcome firsthand experience to counter many of the ‘hearsay’ claims we read.