Featured Issue: Asylum Under Trump 2.0
On the first day of his second term, President Trump suspended all entries at the U.S. Southern Border for asylum seekers. Since then, the Administration has implemented sweeping restrictions that shut America’s doors to people fleeing persecution. These policies violate federal law, erode constitutionally protected due process, exacerbate the asylum backlog, and give those seeking safety an increasingly narrow path to protection.
Left unchecked by Congress, these policies will have dire consequences for both asylum seekers and the integrity of our legal system. Asylum seekers—especially those without access to counsel—are at grave risk of being returned to harm.
It doesn’t have to be this way. The Administration can maintain order at U.S. borders and effectively manage migration without sacrificing fairness and adherence to the law. With more trained asylum officers, a streamlined legal process, legal representation for asylum seekers, and more effective coordination between relevant agencies, the U.S. can establish a safe, orderly, and humane asylum system.
Browse the Featured Issue: Asylum Under Trump 2.0 collection
CA7 Defines Assistance in Persecution of Others in Denying Claim of Punjabi Constable
CA7 held that the record must reveal actual assistance or participation in the persecution of others, noting the distinction between genuine assistance and inconsequential association. It found that Petitioner’s conduct crossed the line into actual assistance.(Singh v. Gonzales, 8/5/05)
CA2 Rejects Asylum Claim Based Solely on Mother’s Forced Sterilization
The court stated that just as parents are not eligible for asylum based on coercive population control measures practiced on their children, the children of parents who are victims of this policy are also not per se eligible. (Chen v. Gonzales, 8/5/05)
CA7 Finds Two Verbal Threats by FARC Did Not Amount to Persecution
The Court found that verbal threats for refusal to sell military supplies to FARC were not sufficiently immediate or menacing to be persecution, nor were the threats held to be on account of a protected ground.(Hernandez-Baena v. Gonzales, 8/4/05)
CA9 Rules Against Family Firmly Resettled in Canada in Effort to Discourage Forum Shopping
The Court held that a family who abandoned its refugee application in Canada after residing there for 4 years, was presumed to be firmly resettled. The Court found that forum shopping undermined the integrity of the international asylum regime. (Maharaj v. Gonales, 8/4/05)
CA9 Finds Russian Jew’s Cumulative Harm Amounted to Persecution
The Court found that the sustained economic pressure faced by Petitioner, the nature and extent of the physical violence she experienced, and the restrictions on her ability to practice her religion cumulatively amounted to persecution. (Krovota v. Gonzales, 8/4/05)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Asylum for Chinese Catholic
The court found no evidence that Petitioner suffered mistreatment in China because of her Catholic faith and that the climate in China was generally not oppressive for Catholics. (Zheng v. Gonzales, 8/4/05)
CA9 Finds that Asylum Hearing of Russian Pentecostal Did Not Comport with Due Process
The Court found that the IJ’s conduct was prejudicial, having excluded the testimony of several key witnesses, including Petitioner’s grandmother and an expert who could have affected the outcome of the proceedings. (Zolotukhin v. Gonzales, 8/3/05)
CA1 Finds Short Detentions Do Not Amount to Persecution
In an Albanian asylum claim, the court held that because Petitioner’s detentions lasted only 24 hours and he never needed medical attention as a result of the beatings he received, the harm did not amount to persecution. (Topalli v. Gonzales, 8/2/05)
CA7 Addresses Scope of Review of CAT Claims By Criminal Aliens
The court held that review of CAT claims by persons subject to INA §242(a)(2)(C) is limited to legal and constitutional claims, and not factual conclusions. (Hamid v. Gonzales, 8/2/05)
CA2 Says BIA Erred in Failing to Consider China Country Report
The court found significant error in the BIA’s failure to consider the country report submitted by a Chinese asylum applicant where the report corroborated his fear of persecution based on his Christian religion. (Chen v. Gonzales, 8/2/05)
CA8 Upholds IJ’s Adverse Credibility Determination for Kenyan Asylum Applicant
CA8 found that the IJ gave specific, cogent reasons for disbelieving Petitioner, including the lack of detail in his story, his implausible explanations for his bigamy and lack of contact with his family, and the lack of corroborating evidence for his allegations.(Ombongi v. Gonzales, 8/1/05)
CA7 Finds that Cohabitation with Boyfriend Is Not an Expression of Political Opinion
The Court found that a Chinese asylum applicant’s alleged expression of political opinion via cohabitation with a man outside marriage did not constitute a political opinion. (Li v. Gonzales, 8/1/05)
CA8 Rejects Claim that Salvadoran Government Unable or Unwilling to Protect Against Gang Members
CA8 rejected claims of Salvadoran asylum applicant, holding that Petitioner failed to show that Salvadoran police were unable or unwilling to protect her from a gang member. The Court discounted news articles about gang activity in El Salvador as too general. (Menjivar v. Gonzales, 7/29/05)
CA11 Remands Case to Determine What Constitutes"Other Resistance" to China's One-Child Policy
The Court affirmed the BIA’s decision that Petitioner was not subjected to forced sterilization, but remanded her claim for a determination on whether her actions resisting other forms of birth control could be construed as “other resistance.” (Yang v. U.S. Atty. General, 7/29/05)
CA1 Upholds IJ’s Adverse Credibility Finding in Albanian Asylum Case
The court found that IJ correctly identified inconsistencies in Petitioner’s testimony and application, offered specific reasons for the adverse credibility finding, and properly relied on the 2001 DOS country report for Albania. (Dhima v. Gonzales, 7/28/05)
CA8 Says BIA Erred in Not Considering Significant Evidence Regarding Objective Fear of Persecution
The Court held that the BIA erred in rejecting testimony of asylum applicant’s sister in finding that the applicant lacked an objective fear of persecution based on China’s One-Child Policy. (Zheng v. Gonzales, 7/28/05)
CA6 Says BIA Credibility Determination Was Not Based on Substantial Evidence
The Court found that the inconsistencies cited by the Board either did not go to the heart of Petitioner’s claim, were corrected at the start of the hearing, or were non-existent. (Pergega v. Gonzales, 7/28/05)
CA2 Finds IJ/BIA Failed to Address Nationality in Tibetan Asylum Claim
The court held that both the IJ and BIA erred in failing to address the threshold question of Petitioner’s nationality, where Petitioner was born and raised in refugee camp in India to Tibetan parents. (Dhoumo v. BIA, 7/27/05)
CA1 Finds No Objectively Reasonable Fear for Eritrean from Ethiopia
The court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s finding that country conditions had changed such that the ethnic Eritrean petitioner would not be denied employment or deported to Eritrea if she returned to Ethiopia. (Negeya v. Gonzales, 7/27/05)
CA2 Says Parents and In-Laws Do Not Qualify for Family Planning-Based Asylum
The court denied asylum to Chinese nationals whose daughters-in-law were subjected to coercive population control methods, finding that an individual’s right to procreate does not extend to their parents and in-laws. (Feng Yuan v. Gonzales, 7/26/05)
CA7 Reproaches BIA for Failing to Define “Persecution” in Pakistani Asylum Case
The Court criticized the IJ and BIA for not stating the reasoning for ruling that an Ahmadi from Pakistan did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. It ordered the BIA to discharge its responsibility by defining “persecution.” (Sahi v. Gonzales, 7/25/05)
CA3 Holds BIA’s Findings Were Unsupported by the Record
The court found that the BIA’s basis for rejecting Petitioner’s claim was unsupported by the record and that the BIA impermissibly focused on general unrest in Colombia and the fact that Petitioner’s parents and brothers remained in Colombia unharmed. (Vente Vente v. Gonzales, 7/22/05)
CA1 Upholds IJ’s Adverse Credibility Determination in Albanian Claim
The court agreed with the IJ that the Albanian asylum applicant was not credible, failed to link the claimed attacks to his political beliefs, and presented corroborating evidence that undermined his claim. (Kasneci v. Gonzales, 7/21/05)
CA1 Remands Cambodian Withholding Claim for Past Persecution Determination
The court remanded the case for further consideration of Petitioner’s past persecution claim, noting that Petitioner received both explicit and implicit death threats, and that a threat to life could amount to persecution. (Un v. Gonzales, 7/21/05)
CA7 Rules IJ & BIA Ignored Evidence of Religious Persectution in Asylum Claim of Sri Lankan Muslim
The Court held that the evidence presented supported Petitioner’s claim that he was targeted for harassment and extortion, in part because he was Muslim. The Court remanded the case to the BIA because both the BIA and the IJ ignored the evidence. (Mohideen v. Gonzales, 7/21/05)