Unusual Asylum Cases Spark Debate

Sept. 25, 2000 -- When it comes to political asylum in the United States, it’s not just a would-be refugee’s political status that matters anymore.

Thanks to recent rulings by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, the perception of political asylum and ideas about who should be considered for sanctuary are growing much broader.

The classic example used to be the defector from a communist bloc nation — usually a dissident leader or critic fleeing a repressive regime.

Recently however, the INS has granted asylum to whole new categories of people, extending the definition of who is considered a political refugee to abused women, gays, and maybe soon, to people with disabilities.

Social Threats

Last July, an alleged victim of domestic abuse won asylum when her lawyers argued her husband threatened her life because of her political beliefs. According to her attorneys, “Jane Doe,” an East African woman who married into a tribe that believes wives should be servants to their husbands, was a member of group of women who did not share the tribe’s beliefs and would not be protected from abusive spouses by the government. Most of Jane Doe’s conflict, her lawyers stressed, was based on her beliefs and her criticism of her husband’s tribe.

In May, a gay Colombian couple won asylum when they argued their lives would be endangered in their native country because of their sexuality. Using a similar argument, a Mexican male crossdresser also won asylum in a California court.

And in Chicago, a Pakistani mother is seeking sanctuary for her and her son based on the boy’s disability — autism. Umair Choudry’s autism is so severe he cannot talk and has to wear a helmet and mittens for protection against self-mutilation. His mother, Farah Choudhry, says autism is considered a curse by Allah in Pakistan. Because the disease is misunderstood and there are little support services, Choudry says her son would be persecuted and tortured in Pakistan.

How can all these people file for asylum under such a variety of different circumstances? The answer lies in the definition of “refugee” under the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980. The statute adopted the definition of refugee taken from the United Nations asylum treaty signed in 1951. Under the act, a refugee is someone who is unwilling to return to his country out of fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.”

The Social Group Provision

The “social group membership” provision in the act, critics argue, have blown open the doors of political asylum, stretching its boundaries. Some critics say the political asylum system is being abused and has made almost all victims eligible for asylum.

“Unfortunately, under this provision that includes membership in a social group, political asylum is based on status rather than individual behavior,” said Dan Stein, Executive Director of The Federation for American Immigration Reform.

“Suddenly, every group seeking to legitimize their cause is filing for asylum. In a society of victims, every single group seems to be eligible for political asylum.”

Stein argues that instead of providing a haven for victims of political persecution and threats, political asylum is being used to combat various forms of prejudice and social intolerance. Better communication and education, he says, are the more appropriate solutions to these problems, not asylum. Lawyer advocates, Stein says, are twisting the stories of their clients to fit a cause so they can continue to extend the coverage of political asylum.

“If you have someone from Brazil whose home has been bombed in retaliation for his support of gay legislation, then he’s a candidate for political asylum,” Stein said. “But if you have someone who’s a victim of gay bashing, that’s not something that should be handled through asylum. … Asylum cannot solve every vexation in society. People think the system handles more weight than it can actually hold.”

Persecution Comes in Many Stripes

Others say the face of asylum is not changing at all. Political asylum, they argue, has always been designed to provide refuge for all kinds of disenfranchised victims.

“From the very beginning, asylum has been meant to protect not just political refugees but also those persecuted for religion, race or group affiliation,” said Eleanor Acer, Senior Coordinator with the Lawyers Committee For Human Rights. “It’s found in the language of [1951] Convention [treaty on asylum].”

Acer pointed out that there are many kinds of kinds of persecution around the world and a wide range of cases that can be considered for asylum. However, she stressed that the system does not give blanket asylum to all cases. Each case is handled individually and has a different set of circumstances that must be considered.

“Each case is fact specific, has its own set of facts, its own set of circumstances, depending on the region involved and other issues,” Acer said. “There isn’t just this blanket system where every case is granted asylum. Every situation is handled on a case-by-case basis.”

Though the number of cases asylum cases filed has decreased since 1993, a greater percentage has been approved. According to the INS, 15 percent of 127,129 requests were approved in 1993. Last year, 30,261 political asylum requests were filed, but 38 percent of them were approved.

Abused Child or Abused System?

While it is not entirely clear what final arguments Umair Choudry’s attorneys will use in his quest for political asylum, fear of religious persecution may become a key argument. In his application, which is based partly on his mother’s testimony, Umair’s attorneys argue he was subject to religious discrimination and ostracization in Pakistan because of society’s perception of his disease.

Still, opponents claim Umair’s case is just another abuse and misapplication of political asylum.

“The point of asylum is not to provide medical care,” said Dan Stein. “That is not the point of the system; that is not the way to go about solving the problem. Various lawyers and organizations will concoct stories, do anything to try to extend the limits of asylum for their clients. Asylum is not accommodate all the grievances and ills in society. Otherwise, it loses its purpose.”

According to the Lawyers Committee For Human Rights and the Board of Immigration Appeals, there have been no reported cases of disability in asylum petitions. Should Umair’s quest succeed, refugees may have a new argument for political asylum.