Human rights in refugee tribunals

Refugee Survey Quarterly

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 6-23

  Jastram, Kate ^a   Cavalieri, Shelley ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN RIGHTS; REFUGEE;

EASTERN HEMISPHERE; EURASIA; EUROPE; WORLD;

EID: 21344434750     PISSN: 10204067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rsq/hdi023     Document Type: Review

References (129)

1. United Nations Charter, June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1031, T.S. 993, 3 Bevans 1153, entered into force Oct. 24, 1945.
2. Nehemiah Robinson, Commentary on the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 3-4 (1953).
3. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948).
4. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 U.N.T.S. 150, entered into force April 22, 1954 [hereinafter Refugee Convention].
5. Executive Committee Conclusion No. 50 (1988), para. (b).
6. Executive Committee Conclusion No. 56 (1989), para. (b)(vi).
7. Executive Committee Conclusion No. 85 (1998), para. (f) and (h);
8. see also Executive Committee Conclusion No. 99 (2004), para. (1).
9. Executive Committee General Conclusion No. 95 (2003), para. (k) and (l).
10. Vienna Declaration, World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 14-25 June 1993, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/24 (Part I), at 20 (1993)..
11. See, e.g., Executive Committee Conclusions No. 65 (1991), para. (u)-(v), No. 68 (1992), para. (p), No. 71 (1993), para. (aa)-(cc), No. 74 (1994), para. (kk)-(ll), No. 79 (1996), para. (w), No. 85 (1998), para. (i).
12. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, The International Protection of Refugees: Interpreting Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 20 Refugee Surv. Q. 77, 78 (2001).
13. Id. at 82.
14. See Summary Conclusions: Gender-related Persecution, in Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection 351 (Erika Feller et al. eds., 2003), and Guidelines on International Protection No. 1 "Gender-related Persecution" (HCR/GIP/02/01);
15. Summary Conclusions: Membership of a Particular Social Group, in Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection 312 (Erika Feller et al. eds., 2003) and Guidelines on International Protection No. 2 "Membership of a Particular Social Group" (HCR/GIP/02/02);
16. Summary Conclusions: cessation of refugee status, in Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection 545 (Erika Feller et al. eds., 2003), and Guidelines on International Protection No. 3 "Cessation of Refugee Status" (HCR/GIP/03/03);
17. Summary Conclusions: Internal Protection/Relocation/Flight Alternative, in Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection 418 (Erika Feller et al. eds., 2003), and Guidelines on International Protection No. 4 "Internal Flight or Relocation Alternative" (HCR/GIP/03/04);
18. and Summary Conclusions: Exclusion from Refugee Status, in Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection 479 (Erika Feller et al. eds., 2003), and Guidelines on International Protection No. 5 "Application of the Exclusion Clauses" (HCR/GIP/03/05).
19. See, e.g., U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Report of the UNHCR Executive Committee, U.N. Doc. A/AC.96/549 at para. 53 (1977), Guy Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law 167 (2d ed. 1996);
20. Arthur C. Helton, What is Forced Migration?, 13 Georgetown Immigr. L.J. 521, 524 (1999).
21. See Sir Elihu Lauterpacht & Daniel Bethlehem, The scope and content of the principle of non-refoulement: Opinion, in Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection 87 (Erika Feller et al. eds., 2003).
22. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, U.N. Doc. HCR/ IP/4/Eng/Rev.1 at para. 51 (Re-edited, 1992) (1979) [hereinafter UNHCR Handbook].
23. Ibid. Id.
24. James C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status 104-05 (1991) (footnotes omitted).
25. Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law 67 (2d ed. 1996).
26. Deborah E. Anker, Refugee Law, Gender, and the Human Rights Paradigm, 15 Harvard Hum. Rts. J. 133, 139-40 (2002).
27. Refugee Appeal No. 74665/03, para. 39 (2004), available at http:// www.refugee.org.nz/Fulltext/7466503.html (quoting Refugee Appeal No. 71427/99, para. 46 (2000)).
28. Id. at para. 41.
29. Id. at para. 50-51.
30. Id. at para. 58
31. (citing James C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status 108 (1991)), available at http://www.refugee.org.nz/rsaa/text/docs/ 1039-93.htm).
32. Id. at para. 65.
33. Id. at para. 66
34. citing James C. Hathaway, The Relationship Between Human Rights and Refugee Law: What Refugee Law Judges Can Contribute, in International Association of Refugee Law Judges, The Realities of Refugee Determination on the Eve of a New Millennium: The Role of the Judiciary (1998) 80, 85.).
35. Id. at para. 63, 68.
36. Id. at para. 69.
37. Id. at para. 73.
38. The court flatly rejected the use of the work of the UN Human Rights Commission as guidance in defining persecution, noting the excessively politicized nature of the Commission and its resulting documents. See id. at para. 78.
39. Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward [1993] 2 SCR 689, 734. The New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority paid particular attention to this case in Refugee Appeal No. 74665/03 at para. 39 (2004).
40. Id. at 735.
41. Horvath v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2000] 1 A.C. 489, 495 (U.K.) (quoting James C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status 112 (1991)).
42. See, e.g., In re C-Y-Z-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 915, 927 (BIA 1997) (considering the "fundamental human rights at stake" in forcible sterilizations as a portion of its rationale that persecution had occurred).
43. This section of the US Asylum Officer Basic Training Course is found on pages 19 and 20 of the manual, available at http://www.asylumlaw.org/ docs/united_states/asylum_officer_training_elligibility1_112001.pdf.
44. Asylumlaw.org offers an index to the entire manual from 2001 at http:// www.asylumlaw.org/legal_tools/index.cfm?category=119&countryID =194.
45. UNHCR Handbook at para. 59.
46. Id. at para. 60.
47. UNHCR Handbook at para. 171.
48. See M.A. v. I.N.S., 899 F.2d 304, 314 (4th Cir. 1990).
49. See Refugee Appeal No. 74665/03, supra note 29 and accompanying discussion.
50. UNHCR Handbook at para. 68.
51. Id. at para. 69.
52. Id. at para. 71.
53. Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward [1993] 2SCR 689, 739.
54. Re HBS and LBY, Refugee Appeal No. 1039/93 (1995), available at http://www.refugee.org.nz/rsaa/text/docs/1039-93.htm.
55. Refugee Convention, Art. 1C. However, this clause may not apply to a refugee whose claim to asylum results from reasons relating to previous persecution in the country of former habitual residence.
56. Executive Committee Conclusion No. 69 (1992), para. (a).
57. Id. at para. (b).
58. See Joan Fitzpatrick & Rafael Bonoan, Cessation of Refugee Protection, in Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection 491, 499-512 (Erika Feller et al. eds., 2003).
59. Joan Fitzpatrick, The End of Protection: Legal Standards for Cessation of Refugee Status and Withdrawal of Temporary Protection, 13 Georgetown Immigr. L.J. 343, 356 (1999);
60. see also Fitzpatrick & Bonoan, supra note 46, at 530 (identifying the confusion that can result when cessation elements are used in the context of refugee status determination).
61. See Joan Fitzpatrick, The End of Protection: Legal Standards for Cessation of Refugee Status and Withdrawal of Temporary Protection, 13 Georgetown Immigr. L.J. 343, 357-58 (1999).
62. See id. at 358-59.
63. Ahmed v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, [1999] FCA 811 (Aus.).
64. A.A., Refugee Appeal No. 11/92 (RSAA 1992), available at http:// www.refugee.org.nz/rsaa/text/docs/11-92.htm.
65. Lal v. INS, 255 F.3d 998, 1010-11 (9th Cir. 2001).
66. Sabaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), Docket No. A-536-90 (1992), available at http://www.refugeecaselaw.org/_RefugeeCases/sabaratnam10292.pdf.
67. Berishaj v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 314, 317 (3d Cir. 2004).
68. Ibid. Id.
69. See Refugee Convention Art. 1C (5) (providing that cessation for changed circumstances will not apply in instances where the refugee can "invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution"); see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 (b) (1) (2003).
70. See, e.g., Brucaj v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2004) (stating that the past persecution must be so severe that repatriation would be inhumane).
71. Matter of Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. 16, 21 (BIA 1989).
72. Refugee Convention Art. 1F.
73. Some jurisdictions use Art. 33(2) as a further statement of exclusion principles with specific regard to the standard of non-refoulement, denying the foundational right of non-return to situations of persecution to a person reasonably regarded as a danger to the country in which he is, or who, owing to conviction for a particularly serious crime, is deemed a "danger to the community" of that country. This, however, is not strictly speaking an exclusion principle as it is intended for application to persons already within a country of asylum. By contrast, the analysis that Art. 1 mandates focuses on acts committed prior to arrival in the country of asylum. The practical intent of Art. 33(2) is to allow states to remove refugees who have proven themselves to be of particular danger to the country that has granted them asylum. In practice, the US, for example, uses Art. 33(2) to justify the removal of recognized refugees even for the commission of minor criminal offenses.
74. Geoff Gilbert, Current Issues in the Application of the Exclusion Clauses, in Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection 425, 428 (Erika Feller et al. eds., 2003).
75. Immigration Act, R.S.C., ch. I-2, § 19 (1985) (Can.). Although this permutation of the Immigration Act was subsequently repealed, its relevant language was again codified in its entirety in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. ch. 27 § 35 (1) (b) (2000) (stating that "[a] permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for being a prescribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic gross human rights violations or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity.").
76. Shirdon v. Canada, 10 Immigr. L. Rptr. (3d) 272 (2000) (Immigration & Refugee Board Appeal Division).
77. Sivakumar v. Canada, [1994] 1 F.C. 433.
78. See Re TP, Refugee Appeal No. 1248/93, para. 196-99 (RSAA 1995), available at http://www.refugee.org. nz/rsaa/text/docs/ 1248-93.htm.
79. Ibid. Id.
80. Refugee Appeal No. 72635/01 (RSAA 2002), available at http:// www.refugee.org.nz/Fulltext/72635-01.htm.
81. T. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1996] 2 WLR 766 (U.K.).
82. Cheema v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 1977671, 9-10 (9th Cir.).
83. Id. at 11.
84. Geoff Gilbert, Current Issues in the Application of the Exclusion Clauses, in Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection 425, 428 (Erika Feller et al. eds., 2003).
85. Joan Fitzpatrick, Rendition and Transfer in the War against Terrorism: Guantanamo and Beyond, 25 Loyola of L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 457, 477-78 (2003).
86. Geoff Gilbert, Current Issues in the Application of the Exclusion Clauses, in Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection 425, 429-30 (Erika Feller et al. eds., 2003).
87. Id. at 431.
88. Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Safeguarding the Rights of Refugees Under the Exclusion Clauses: Summary Findings of the Project and a Lawyers Committee for Human Rights Perspective, 12 Int'l J. of Refugee L. 317 (2000),
89. William O'Neill, Conflict in West Afiica: Dealing with Exclusion and Separation, 12 Int'l J. of Refugee L. 171 (2000).
90. Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Safeguarding the Rights of Refugees Under the Exclusion Clauses: Summary Findings of the Project and a Lawyers Committee for Human Rights Perspective, 12 Int'l J. of Refugee L. 317, 323 (2000).
91. UNHCR Handbook at para. 196.
92. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 (a).
93. See Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 553-54 (3d Cir. 2001).
94. See, e.g., Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 889-90 (9th Cir. 2004).
95. Refugee Appeal No. 73545/02 (RSAA 2002) para. 71-72, available at http://www.refugee.org.nz/Fulltext/73545-02.htm.
96. Refugee Appeal No. 71427/99 (RSAA 2000) para. 116, available at http://www.refugee.org.nz/Fulltext/71427-99.htm.
97. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v. Khawar, [2002] HCA 14 (Aus.).
98. In re Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. 357, 366 (BIA 1996).
99. Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2003).
100. See, e.g., Ontunez-Torsios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 345;
101. Abebe v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 1801881 (9th Cir. 2004) (No. 02-72390) (citing State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Ethiopia to show that women were able to prevent their daughters from being subjected to FGM by relatives);
102. Balogun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492, 506-07 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing the State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Nigeria from 2000 to show that FGM is declining in prevalence in the region of the country in question);
103. In re G-A, 23 I. & N. Dec. 366 (BIA 2002). These reports can be found at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/c1470.htm.
104. See, e.g., Chen v. Ashcroft, 376 F. 3d 215, 225-26 (3d Cir. 2004) (stating that "[w]e have previously questioned such wholesale reliance on the Department of State's country reports" in finding that the BIA erroneously rejected proffered evidence based on nothing more than the country report);
105. Sael v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 2303444 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding that the State Dept. report had "little relevance" to the claim, compared to the evidence proffered by the applicant);
106. Lian v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 2004) (considering a CAT claim).
107. Joan Fitzpatrick, The End of Protection: Legal Standards for Cessation of Refugee Status and Withdrawal of Temporary Protection, 13 Georgetown Immigr. L.J. 343, 360 (1999).
108. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 established the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, which publishes The Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The most recent edition of this report is available at http:// www.uscirf.org/reports/12May04/2004annualRpt.pdf. The website of the Commission is http://www.uscirf.gov.
109. See, e.g., Lian v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 457, 459 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing the British Home Office Report on Asylum in the UK, China Extended Bulletin 4/2002 and the Country Information & Policy Unit of the Home Office (UK), Asylum and Appeals Policy Directorate, China Country Report (Oct. 2003), in analyzing a CAT claim);
110. Refugee Appeal Nos. 72558/01 & 72559/01 (RSAA 2002), available at http://www.refugee.org.nz/Fulltext/72558-01.htm (citing the United States Department of State Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 1999: Indonesia);
111. Refugee Appeal No, 74665/03 (RSAA 2004), available at http:// www.refugee.org.nz/Fulltext/74665-03.html (citing an update of the Research Directorate of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board). The Canadian reports are available at http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/ researchpub/research/origin_e.htm;
112. United States' reports are available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/irf/ rpt/.
113. See, e.g., Re HBS and LBY, Refugee Appeal No. 1039/93 (RSAA 1995), available at http://www.refugee.org.nz/rsaa/text/docs/1039-93.htm (rejecting the brief accounting of religious persecution in Malaysia as definitive authority on the situation).
114. Current and past reports from Amnesty International are available at http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/index.html (the homepage of the Amnesty International Annual Reports).
115. Current and past reports from Human Rights Watch are available at http:// www.hrw.org/countries.html (available reports and documents listed by country).
116. See, e.g., Refugee Appeal No. 74665/03 (RSAA 2004), available at http://www.refugee.org.nz/Fulltext/74665-03.html;
117. Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463, 467-68 (3d Cir. 2003);
118. In re R-S-H, 23 I. & N. Dec. 629 (BIA 2003);
119. Kindler v. Canada, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779;
120. Machedon v. Canada, [2004] F.C. 1104;
121. Behrooz v. Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, 78 AJLR 1056 (2004);
122. R. v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal, 2000 WL 1741499 (QBD (Admin Ct) 2000).
123. Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463, 478 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Kazlauskas v. INS, 46 F.3d 902, 906 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Rojas v. INS, 937 F.2d 186, 190 n. 1 (5th Cir., 1991)).
124. See, e.g., Re MN, Refugee Appeal No. 2039/93 (RSAA 1996), available at http://www.refugee.org.nz/rsaa/text/docs/2039-93.htm (citing an article in Columbia Human Rights Law Review that discusses sex-based persecution as grounds for asylum).
125. See, e.g., Refugee Appeal No. 71427/99 (RSAA 2000), available at http://www.refugee.org.nz/Fulltext/71427-99.htm (citing academic books showing the impact of Islamic law on women in Iran).
126. See, e.g., Sael v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 2303444 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing proffered corroborative evidence from The Economist, BBC News, The Jakarta Post, USA Today, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Post).
127. See, e.g., Re HBS and LBY, Refugee Appeal No. 1039/93 (RSAA 1995), available at http://www.refugee.org.nz/rsaa/text/docs/1039-93.htm (citing a letter from the president of the Punjab Human Rights Organization as potentially valuable documentation of the human rights situation in Malaysia).
128. See, e.g., Refugee Appeal No. 74665/03 para. 39 (2004), available at http://www.refugee.org.nz/Fulltext/74665-03.html. The International Lesbian and Gay Association's World Legal Survey is available at http://www.ilga.info/Information/Legal_survey/ilga_worl_legal_survey%20introduction.htm.
129. This research guide is available at http://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/ online/guides/international_foreign/humanRights/index.html.