Asylum for Victims of Domestic Abuse

Some of my proudest moments representing clients before Immigration Courts has been when I have won asylum for women from Central America who have been the victims of domestic abuse.  Unfortunately, in the Trump Administration's crack down on immigration, the future of such cases are seriously in doubt. 

Through asylum, the United States grants protection to people who find their life or well-being in jeopardy in their home country.  The legal standard for asylum is whether a person was a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

Congress established the asylum standards through the Refugee Act of 1980.  In that Act, Congress did not define the term "particular social group."  The term, therefore, has been the subject of much litigation in asylum cases.  An entire set of cases from the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA), which is the administrative agency that normally hears appeals from Immigration Court decisions, has addressed this term, and developed case law establishing how it is to be defined in individual asylum cases.

In 2014, the "BIA" issued a decision in a case called Matter of A-R-C-G-.  Through that case, the BIA held that "married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship" constituted an appropriate particular social group upon which an asylum claim can be based.  After the BIA issued its decision, immigration lawyers would slightly modify the approved particular social group to fit the facts of their case.  Thus, a lawyer could define the particular social group to fit the country of origin, such as "married women from El Salvador . . . ."  Or, if the woman was in a committed relationship, but not legally married, the particular social group could be defined as "women in a committed relationship . . . ."

In June of 2018, however, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a decision in the immigration appeal of Matter of A-B-.  By statute, the Attorney General can choose to adjudicate an appeal from the Immigration Court himself, and issue a decision that is binding on all Immigration Judges.  Like Matter of A-R-C-G-, Matter of A-B- involved an asylum claim based on a Central American woman who was the victim of domestic violence.  The Attorney General overruled Matter of A-R-C-G-, contending that the BIA did not do an appropriate analysis of the term "particular social group."  Instead, according to the Attorney General, the BIA merely issued a decision based on a concession by both parties.  That is, the lawyers from the Department of Homeland Security, who represent the U.S. Government in appeals from Immigration Courts, served under the Obama Administration, and agreed with the asylum applicant that "married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship" was an appropriate particular social group.  Attorney General Sessions believed that it was not appropriate for a decision which did not go through the full analysis as set forth in the previous BIA to establish a general rule concerning the particular social group.

While that holding alone was dispositive of the case in Matter of A-B-, the Attorney General went further, proclaiming that any case based on private criminal activity, such as domestic violence and gang activity, were not likely to qualify for asylum.  This statement was not necessary to decide the case at hand, and thus lawyers would call it dicta.  Dicta is not a binding principle of law for lower courts.  However, many Immigration Judges read the Attorney General's statement as more than just mere dicta, and began using it as a rule to decline asylum applications based on domestic violence.

Matter of A-B- had consequences beyond the Immigration Court context.  Pursuant to U.S. law, if an alien is apprehended within 100 miles of the border less than 14 days after entering the United States, that alien can be expeditiously removed from the United States by an officer from Customs and Border Protection.  This is called expedited removal.  However, if that alien has a credible fear of persecution if returned to his or her home country, expedited removal does not apply, and the alien is referred to Immigration Court to have an asylum petition adjudicated.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), which administers asylum claims made outside of the Immigration Court system, created a process to determine when an alien has a credible fear of persecution.  Called "credible fear determinations," an asylum officer interviews the alien in a non-adversarial setting, and determines if that alien would likely be successful in filing an asylum application.  After Matter of A-B-, USCIS issued policy guidance that victims of gang violence or domestic violence could not receive a positive credible fear determination.

Twelve aliens who had been denied a positive credible fear determination sued the Attorney General in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  In December of 2018, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issued a decision in the case of Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F.Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018).  Judge Sullivan held that the general rule that an asylum applicant whose claim was based on domestic violence or gang violence could not qualify for a positive credible fear determination was arbitrary and capricious.  He therefore issued an injunction preventing the U.S. Government from applying that portion of Matter of A-B- in credible fear determinations.  The Government has, of course, appealed from this decision.

Specifically, the Judge found that there was no legal basis for a categorical denial of asylum claims based on domestic violence or gang related activities.  Furthermore, such  a rule would run counter to the individualized analysis required in every case by the statute.

Thus, the future of asylum claims based on domestic violence and gang violence remains in question.  On the one hand, a federal court has found a categorical ban, at least in the context of credible fear determinations, to be arbitrary and capricious.  On the other hand, the Trump Administration continues to fight for the ability to deny such asylum claims.

At the heart of Attorney General Sessions' reasoning was that domestic violence and gang-related activities were private crimes, and not the result of government action.  The basis of this argument is that asylum is meant to address persecution perpetrated by a foreign government, not a private citizen.  However, the legal standard in asylum cases is whether the persecution would be perpetrated by the government, or whether the government would be unable or unwilling to control the actions of the perpetrators.

In this regard, the argument in favor of granting asylum to victims of domestic violence centers on proving that the society is one where domestic violence is accepted, and which the government does nothing to address the problem, or is unable to address the problem.  That is, the government cannot turn a blind eye to the problem of domestic violence.

With respect to Central American countries, such as Honduras and El Salvador, the argument has been that the culture of machismo dominates society.  That is, women in such cultures are viewed as mere property of the male with whom they have a relationship.  Therefore, the government does not interfere when a woman becomes the victim of domestic violence.  Whether the applicant can prevail depends on the quality of evidence that can be presented demonstrating a patriarchal culture, and the acceptance of violence against women as a norm.  Assuming the applicant can demonstrate such government inaction on the issue of domestic violence, that applicant should be able to receive the protection of the United States through asylum.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.

How the Diversity Visa (the Lottery) Actually Works

President Donald Trump has expressed his distaste for the diversity visa on numerous occasions.  In the Rose Garden on February 15, 2019, Trump exclaimed, "And then you have the lottery.  It's a horror show, because when countries put people into the lottery, they're not putting you in; they're putting in some very bad people in the lottery.  It's common sense.  If I ran a country, and if I have a lottery system of people going to the United States, I'm not going to put in my stars; I'm going to put in people I don't want."

Trump continued with his criticism in a campaign rally in Cincinnati on August 1, 2019, stating, "And you pick people out of a lottery.  Well let's see, this one is a murderer, this one robbed four banks, this one I better not say, this one another murderer, ladies and gentlemen, another murderer.  Do you think [these countries] are going to put their great citizens . . . into the lottery?  Look at the people they put into these lotteries."

Trump's message has been consistent.  In 2017, Trump told graduates f the FBI National Academy, "They have a lottery. You pick people. Do you think the country is giving us their best people? No. What kind of a system is that? They come in by lottery. They give us their worst people, they put them in a bin, but in his hand, when he’s picking them is, really, the worst of the worst. Congratulations, you’re going to the United States. Okay. What a system — lottery system."

It is actually quite amazing.  Everything Trump says about the diversity visa lottery is completely wrong.  Not one bit of it is true.  The governments of foreign countries play no role in who applies for a diversity visa through the lottery system.  There is no bin.  No names are drawn from a hat.  Those who win the lottery, and thus have a chance to immigrate to the United States, are vetted to ensure they have no criminal record.  Indeed, in order to obtain the visa, a lottery winner must have a certain level of education or skill to ensure they will not be a drain on the U.S. welfare system.

Through the diversity lottery, visas are made available for 50,000 people each year.   The idea is to give people from countries that have traditionally sent fewer immigrants to the United States the chance to immigrate to the United States.

If a country has sent 50,000 or more immigrants to the United States in the last five years, then people from that country may not receive a diversity visa. Based on this criteria, people from Canada, Mexico, the Philippines, the Peoples Republic of China, El Salvador, Haiti and South Korea, to name a few, are not eligible.

The diversity visas are distributed by region, with people from the regions sending the fewest immigrants to the United States in the previous five years receiving the most visas. The regions which currently receive the most visas under the program are Africa and Europe. No one country can receive more than seven percent, or 3,500, of the visas available for that year. The visas are distributed at random.

To apply, a person enters the lottery online during the registration period. Winning the lottery does not guarantee that the applicant will receive the visa. Rather, the applicant must meet certain additional requirements. The applicant must have graduated high school, or have spent two out of the last five years in an occupation requiring at least two years' training or experience.

A person does not need to meet the eligibility requirements in order to apply online. This has led to a number of disappointed lottery winners. That is, a person can win the lottery only to learn that he or she does not have the required education or work experience to receive the visa.

The be able to immigrate to the United States, a person who receives a diversity visa must still be admissible pursuant to U.S. immigration law.  That means the person may not have committed certain crimes, such as murder, theft or sexual assault.  The person cannot have certain communicable diseases, be a habitual drunkard, be likely to become a public charge, or be considered a threat to national security.

To summarize, a person desiring to immigrate to the United States enters the diversity visa lottery.  That person's government has nothing to do with the application.  Foreign countries do not put people's names into a bit, or a hat, or a box.  An individual applies through the internet by going online.  A computer program picks names randomly.  In order to come to the United States, the person just have a minimum level of education or work experience, and cannot have committed certain crimes.

Thus, when Trump describes the diversity visa, he is engaging in nothing more than fear mongering.  This fear mongering fits in with his overall approach to immigration, where he manipulates the fear of his followers to promote more restrictive immigration policies.  He ignores studies which show immigrants as less likely than those born in the United States to commit violent crimes, instead painting all immigrants as potential threats to the public safety.  Education and access to accurate information can prevent Trump from manipulating the ignorance of his followers to pervert immigration law and policy.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.