Nolan writes:
. . . .
The United States is a signatory to the UN’s Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
According to UNHCR, the U.S. cannot return or expel “a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
The United States is meeting this condition with the withholding of deportation provision in the INA. It provides that, “the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
The burden of proof is higher for withholding than it is for asylum. Asylum just requires the applicant to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Withholding requires the applicant to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted.
And withholding grants fewer benefits.
A grant of withholding does not convey legal immigration status to the alien. It just prohibits sending him to a country where he would face persecution. He can be removed to another country where he will not be persecuted.
Moreover, it is not derivative. A grant of withholding does not apply to the members of the alien’s family.
The United States also is a signatory to the UN’s Convention against Torture (CAT), which prohibits the U.S. from expelling, returning or extraditing “a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”
Relief under CAT does not confer lawful immigration status on the alien. It just prohibits his deportation to the country where he would be tortured. He can be deported to a country where he will not be tortured.
. . . .
************************************
To fully understand the differences between asylum and withholding under the Refugee Convention and the CAT, read Nolan’s complete article over on The Hill!
Nolan makes a good point that although asylum is by statute discretionary, these other forms of relief are mandatory. Moreover, the current Federal case law limits discretionary denials of asylum to “egregious” adverse factors.
PWS
07-13-18
Paul says, “the current Federal case law limits discretionary denials of asylum to “egregious” adverse factors.”
But it doesn’t prevent Trump from issuing an executive order suspending suspension grants until the immigration court backlog crisis has been eliminated and control of the border has been achieved, basing it on his 212(f) authority.
And he can support it with the recent Supreme Court decision on his travel ban.
I meant suspending asylum grants, not suspension grants.
Incidentally, the justification would be that it would greatly reduce the incentive to enter without inspection to assert asylum claims if the only relief possible would be deportation to a third country under a withholding of deportation grant.
Whether he does it this way or some other way, Trump has to reduce the demand for hearings before the immigration court.