United States, Mary Urban and Cardoza Fonseca discussed on Life of the Law

Life of the Law
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Say that persons who are able to simply meet the convention's requirement of having a well-founded fear of being persecuted are not rightful news at all. Furthermore, Joan Fitzpatrick another refugee scholar wrote back in nineteen ninety seven, the as a result of those two decisions. The United States is seriously out of compliance with the single most important peremptory norm of refugee of all the prohibition on nonrefoulement. Non-refoulement is the practice of a country who receives a refugee or asylum seeker. It's the practice of not returning that refugee or asylum seeker to country in which that individual might be liable or subjected to persecution. The impact that this has is that there are individuals who may very will face horrible things in their home country. They somehow are able to escape escape out of the clutches of whatever horror, whatever problem, whatever issue that they are facing, come to the United States, meet the conventions definition of refugee, meet that well-founded fear of being persecuted standard, but not actually be granted the rights in noon rated in the refugee convention. Not actually be granted the right. It's that they should be given under international law because of these two decisions because of static and because of Cardoza Fonseca. Now because of this, I really hope that that one day either through relation overturning these or through the supreme court, again, addressing refugee wall, which which does not happen very often that they will take another look at this and help ensure that the United States not just bide spy, but is a leader and international refugee of all. Before starting law school. At Vanderbilt, I worked for a nonprofit refugee resettlement agency called world relief. When I worked at world relief, I worked with individuals who suffered all kinds of horrible terrors, individuals who escaped all sorts of horrors and trials, and it breaks my heart that there are individuals who may be facing something, but because they're not able to prove some higher level, some higher definition, some probability of persecutions that of just a well-founded fear that there are rights that they would be printed in some other country, but that they're not rented in the United States. And I really hope that one day our walls will change to ensure that refugee rights rights that refugees deserve, that they are able to obtain those all the time. I think that that is something that's very important. In conclusion, well-founded fear is at the core of the definition of a refugee United States because of SV steady. SP Cardoza Fonseca is not in compliance with international wall and stands by itself among signatories in not providing automatically all persons who meet the definition of refugee with all of the rights that they deserve. But most importantly, as we're talking about these cases of laws and policies and different things, let's not lose sight of the people and the stories behind the policies. that was Josh women chin with his report on well-founded fear in the first of our series on refugee law by students in professor mcandrew's immigration law class at Vanderbilt University law school. So if a refugee appears in a US immigration court with a claim of well-founded fear, will they receive a fair neutral hearing by a court or do judges bring their own bias to the bench in asylum hearings. Now we present our second story the wrong judge at the wrong time by Simunic Recco. Today, I will be discussing the American asylum system and how that's some treats asylum applicants on fairly, I will be interviewing Mary urban, who is an immigration attorney in Dallas. And we will mainly be discussing the fact that asylum grant rates vary widely between judges and analyzing how those differences in grant rates impact asylum-seekers. I haven't immigration log on the November twenty eleven. I have been reading morning on years of Mike rear devoted explicitly to silo cases during that time. I was working with human rights initiative of more Canada's recently returned to immigration. Raptors does Tober. I didn't ask Mary whether she knew about discrepancies between asylum grant rates, especially as pertains to the southern states since that is the area she has most familiar. With there have been studies done on this by various lawful connects and nonprofits documented when they have dumped the silent result and five out of cities followed in style. So the six, that he is arguing years done, Charlotte, Atlanta, jealous where I've Baptist in Las Vegas. So just in case anyone needs to hear that again, six US cities have been labeled asylum free Jones. I actually looked up the twenty seventeen article that Mary was talking about, and it defines asylum free zones of areas where asylum seekers are systematically denied protection, regardless of the dangerous. They're fleeing. So why don't asylum applicants just steer clear of those cities. The problem is that asylum applicants often don't have a choice. Choice of which city to Filan because many end up settling in particular city because it's the first place they arrived to after leaving their countries or they have family there or the simply do not have the means to travel anywhere else. Also, when you come into the country as a refugee, no-one hands you a pamphlet telling you which cities you have the best chances of winning asylum it. A lot of refugees come here because they think America as a whole is a safe haven in the quickly learned the truth. After they get introduced to America's immigration system. Other s Mary about Dowell specifically. I looked up the latest available for mation for Dallas immigration judges, and the grant raves for those judges vary from the highest crab rate for any of the Dallas immigration judges over the last five years of data was thirty percent and the lowest was point, two percent. You might think six point. Two percent is really Lou, but it gets worse. I looked at a website cult truck, which compiles data about immigration judges in their decisions in their table of judges in decisions from twenty twelve to twenty seventeen reveals that there are judges who only grant asylum in one point, two percent of cases the table even had one judge from Louisiana who had zero percent grant rate on the other end of the spectrum or judges grant asylum in ninety six percent of cases, but they are the anomaly Mary went onto. Gus discrepancies between different cities with the US. You sense of the comparisons of, you know, the vast disparity across the country. There's also a study done by Reuters. I believe it was an October twenty seventeen and article started off by comparing two hundred women's cases which had the same. Essentially the same facts. There were some differences, but they were for asylum on the same basis on the same set of accents state we will play and one ended up in Charlotte, North Carolina. The other ended up in San Francisco. Charlotte case lost in the fan Francisco case Clun and it's really no surprise when you get the ticks because the Charlotte court, the immigration judges as a whole, their order removed eighty four percent of individuals that come before them womb. In contrast in San Francisco, only thirty, six percent of accuses end up getting ordered removed radio. It just kind of illustrates avast disparity depending on what jurisdiction. Just the look, the drama where you end up giving these very bleak numbers. I asked Mary if there are times when she is nervous about appliance case simply because it was assigned to a certain judge. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I know immigration attorneys who refused to take cases that are assigned to particular judges than needless to stave that carefully pack. Acts asylum-seekers because they might not end up with competent representation or any representation at all. But it's from practitioners expected is very discouraging to have a perspective client onto you when they're assigned judges who have six percent grant rate, you know you, you think you, you're, you have no realistic shot even if you give it your all. So it can be very, very discouraging. In my experience, the immigration judges

Coming up next