It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha
False. That is why this is needed, the asylum process was being abused by Democrats. Please source your claims about persecuting people based on race, religion, or politics. What race, religion, political party is being persecuted exactly?
Nationals of China, El Salvador, and Guatemala accounted for 45 percent (12,013) of those granted affirmative or defensive asylum status in 2017 (see Table 2). Notably, the number of Central Americans from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras who received asylum status grew from 1,007 in 2012 to 8,480 in 2017.
A US federal judge on Wednesday struck down the policies put in place by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions that made it harder for individuals fleeing domestic and gang violence to obtain asylum.
a 2014 landmark decision in Matter of A-R-C-G (initials drawn from the names of the asylum seekers)—they recognized domestic violence as grounds for asylum. More explicitly, this precedent-setting decision held that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their husbands” constituted a particular and persecuted social group.
We find that the lead respondent, a victim of domestic violence in her native country, is a member of a particular social group composed of “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship.”
Orozco-Polanco, United States Immigration Ct., El Paso, TX (December 18, 1997)
Holding that being a young, poor, Guatemalan male constituted a social group for purposes of meeting the statute. Additionally, the respondent expressed anti-gang sentiments, constituting political opinion, and both these grounds entitled respondent to asylum.
Enamorado, United States Immigration Ct., Harlingen, TX (November 22, 1999)
Holding that former membership in a gang could constitute a social group to meet the statutory grounds for asylum, due to the fact that respondent would most likely be persecuted by gang members, the government, and nongovernmental entities. This case was not barred by persecution against others because respondent never actually participated in gang activities and was tattooed against his will.
Calderon-Medina, United States Immigration Ct., Los Angeles, CA (May 1, 2002)
Holding that because respondent was attacked by gang members, was adverse to gangs and their practices, and vocalized his opposition to the gang members, respondent was persecuted because of his political opinion and qualified for asylum.
United States Immigration Court, Baltimore, MD (November 8, 2006)
Holding that a respondent was a member of the social group consisting of Guatemalan women who refuse predation by gang members, finding that both being a woman and refusing sexual and violent advances by gang members are immutable characteristics. Respondent presented testimony from PhD’s who found that she suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of ongoing harassment from gang members.
The Immigration Court is not part of the Judiciary Branch... as such it is not subject to the same restrictions as a Federal Court. Immigration Court is a part of the Executive branch and thus is under the indirect purvue of the President of the United States.
the Supreme Court, which is the head of the Judiciary, just said it's OK and Trump is right... so it's OK and Trump is right!
So? Trump's new rule adjustment is being challenged though the Judicial Branch.
Sessions' new rule have no bearing on, and don't invalidate the asylum cases already granted.
So, we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out, with Mexico, Guatemala and the US courts.
Not sure why you think this affects already granted cases, but whatever.
No recourse until the case appears before the 9th circuit, which could be drug out a couple years if someone wants to. How's it feel to have the shoe on the other foot for a change?
I'm guessing that you guys also feel that female genital mutilation and forced child marriages are also NOT a kind of persecution of a social group.
They were twisting it to give it to people who do not meet the criteria.
An abusive husband is not being persecuted because of your social group.
That would entitle every woman in all of those areas to asylum.
... they make rulings to push social agendas and transform the law. That is not their place.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
I have been watching and trying to learn from our esteemed friends on the far left. I know I can never match their finesse at this sort of thing, but I do want to try it once. Everyone feel free to critique my style afterwards.
OK, here goes....
OK, I think I'm ready... deep breath...
LOL! You guys are so silly! The Supreme Court said Trump is right, so that means he's right! Those phrases in the law don't say what you thought they did. Are you a Justice on the Supreme Court? No? Then your opinions are irrelevant! It's the law now, so you better get used to it.
Whew! That's harder than it looks. Did I do it right?
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Wardaddy454
All of them, apparently.
Notably, the number of Central Americans from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras who received asylum status grew from 1,007 in 2012 to 8,480 in 2017.
OccamsRazor04 wanted proof that the Central Americans granted asylum during 2017 were persecuted. He claimed those stats were false, because of Session's rule change regarding gang and domestic violence. So, I found the legal explanations why those cases were considered persecution. I claimed that Sessions' new rules didn't change the asylum status of those granted asylum in 2017.
(42) The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term “refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.
The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.
The entire US Code that deals with asylum places the Attorney General or Homeland Security in total charge of determination of asylum status. The decisions you brought up are not judicial; they are executive. The Immigration Court is under the complete control of the Attorney General and Homeland Security, and policy for determination of asylum eligibility can be changed via Executive Order or simply by memo from the Attorney General or Homeland Security at any time.
(2) Termination of asylum
Asylum granted under subsection (b) does not convey a right to remain permanently in the United States, and may be terminated if the Attorney General determines that—
(A) the alien no longer meets the conditions described in subsection (b)(1) owing to a fundamental change in circumstances;
(B) the alien meets a condition described in subsection (b)(2);
(C) the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien is eligible to receive asylum or equivalent temporary protection;
(D) the alien has voluntarily availed himself or herself of the protection of the alien’s country of nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the alien’s country of last habitual residence, by returning to such country with permanent resident status or the reasonable possibility of obtaining such status with the same rights and obligations pertaining to other permanent residents of that country; or
(E) the alien has acquired a new nationality and enjoys the protection of the country of his or her new nationality.
That's pretty general.
(iv) there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States;
SCOTUS merely lifted the injunction until the case is heard. It isn't settled, especially since the countries in question aren't going along with it.