Department of Homeland In-Security? Will President Trump’s EO Inhibit Prosecution of International Human Trafficking?

By Benjamin Thomas Greer

“Our courthouses serve as a vital forum for ensuring access to justice and protecting public safety. Courthouses should not be used as bait in the necessary enforcement of our country’s immigration laws.” [1]

On January 25, 2017, President Donald Trump signed the Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States. [2] In this Order, the President directed his administration to enforce the nation’s immigration laws more aggressively, arresting and deporting those in the country illegally, regardless of whether they have committed serious crimes or not. This is in stark contrast to the previous Obama administration where arrests and deportation proceedings were largely based on the severity of an individual’s criminal history. Since the signing of this Executive Order, numerous reports across the west and southwest have documented United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) new aggressive approach to enforcement. Incidents in California, Arizona, Texas and Colorado have seen teams of ICE agents trolling courthouse hallways and parking lots looking for individuals subject to deportation. [3] In February of this year, there were reports ICE agents detained an undocumented woman just after she went to an El Paso, Texas county courthouse to seek a protective order against an allegedly abusive boyfriend. [4]

This past month, in a letter to Attorney General Sessions, California’s Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye criticized the practice of immigration officers entering courthouses and waiting on courthouse steps to make arrests. Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye’s letter was in direct response to several reports from lower court judges, private attorneys, and Legal Aide lawyers relaying the alarming practice of ICE agents arresting people after court proceedings. [5] “Our courts are the main point of contact for millions of the most vulnerable Californians in times of anxiety, stress, and crises in their lives.” [6] Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye closed her letter by stressing these practices not only compromise “our core value of fairness but they undermine the judiciary’s ability to provide equal access to justice. I respectfully request that you refrain from this sort of enforcement in California’s courthouses.” [7]

“Victims of crime…come to our courts seeking justice and due process of law.” [8]

These enforcement practices are likely to undermine the fundamental pillar of trust local law enforcement and prosecutors need to successfully prosecute crime in our communities. Cases that heavily rely upon witness testimony and cooperation from individuals without immigration status will suffer greatly.

This EO Will Make International Human Trafficking Cases More Difficult to Prosecute

The largest concentrations of trafficked victims within the United States have been located in California, Oklahoma, Texas and New York. [9] According to the National Human Trafficking Resource Center Report, California routinely tops the lists of states with the most “potential trafficking locations” and as the state with the most potential victim “caller locations.” [10]

Nonimmigrant T-Visa Protections

In 2000, Congress passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which among other things, created the T-Visa. [11] Congress understood the inequity of deporting trafficking victims; doing so places them in an untenable position by preventing them from seeking law enforcement aid and reporting crime, retarding the discovery and prosecution of human trafficking. [12] Designed to provide immigration safeguards for victims of trafficking, the T-Visa [13] provides an avenue for undocumented victims to remain in the United States [14] with the understanding that their presence was a result of their victimization; thus deportation of victims and witnesses would severely hinder law enforcement’s ability to prosecute trafficking. [15] If a victim or witness was present in the U.S. without proper documentation and was actively seeking a T-Visa, their immigration status is a subject likely to be revealed in open court and potentially subjecting that individual to a DHS enforcement action or removal. California Evidence Code section 780(f) [16] generally permits counsel to purse any line of questioning illuminating the existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive. A victim or witness would surely be reluctant to engage the legal system out of fear of immigration officers who are waiting for them in the courtroom gallery or courthouse hallway.

Courthouses Should Be Added To ICE’s Sensitive Location Policy For Victims of
Crime and Necessary Witnesses

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has created and maintained a policy that advises United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the United States Customs Border Patrol (CBP) against enforcement actions in “sensitive locations.” DHS defines these locations to include:
• Schools [17] including licensed daycares; pre-schools and other early learning programs; primary schools; secondary schools; post-secondary schools up to and including colleges and universities;
• Medical treatment and health care facilities, such as hospitals, doctors’ offices, accredited health clinics, and emergent or urgent care facilities;
• Places of worship, such as churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples;
• Religious or civil ceremonies or observances, such as funerals and weddings; and
• During public demonstration, such as a marches, rallies, or parades. [18]

DHS states, “The policies are meant to ensure that ICE and CBP officers and agents exercise sound judgment when enforcing federal law at or focused on sensitive locations, to enhance the public understanding and trust, and to ensure that people seeking to participate in activities or utilize services provided at any sensitive location are free to do so, without fear or hesitation.” [19] Courthouses are not included on this list and are expressly addressed as unprotected areas on the DHS’s Enforcement and Removal Operations FAQ page. [20] In line with this policy and its prime directives of “public understanding and trust,” with regards to victims of crimes and witnesses, DHS should strongly consider adding courthouses and courthouse grounds to this list of protected sensitive locations.


Under the Trump administration, aggressive border enforcement actions are likely to continue and increase in frequency and intensity. DHS should approach any enforcement or removal action with a nuanced understanding of the potential adverse effects an action could, or is likely, to cause to the administration of justice. The decision to take an enforcement or removal action should not be binary. The enforcing agency should examine all available facts before deciding whether and how to act. This will necessitate clear and robust communication between federal, state and local authorities. Applying a myopic view of immigration law will be detrimental to the overall safety of all citizens no matter what their immigration status.

About the author
Benjamin_GreerBenjamin Thomas Greer is a Fmr. Special Deputy Attorney General (Special DAG), California Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General. As a specializing Deputy Attorney General he was a lead member of the California Attorney General’s Human Trafficking Special Projects Team and Co-Chaired the Attorney General’s Human Trafficking Statewide Working Group, tasked with a comprehensive update of the statewide trafficking report. He has published extensively on human trafficking, presenting his work around the world in over 8 countries. In 2015 Mr. Greer teamed up with other experts to form the Human Trafficking Investigations & Training Institute.


[1] Letter from Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, California Chief Justice to Jefferson Sessions, United States Attorney General (March 16, 2017) (Available at
[2] Exec. Order dated January 25, 2017, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States. (Available at (Accessed March 30, 2017).
[3] James Queally. ICE agents make arrests at courthouses, sparking backlash from attorneys and state supreme court. Available at Accessed March 30, 2017.
[4] Richard Gonzales. ICE Detains Alleged Victim Of Domestic Abuse At Texas Courthouse. Available at Accessed March 30, 2017. 5 Angela Hart. Quit stalking immigrants at California courthouses, chief justice tells ICE. Available at Accessed March 30, 2017. 6 Letter from Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, California Chief Justice to Jefferson Sessions, United States Attorney General (March 16, 2017) (Available at
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Report to Congress from Attorney General John Ashcroft on U.S. Government Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons in Fiscal Year 2003 (2004) (Available at (Accessed March 30, 2017).
[10] Increasing Awareness and Engagement: Strengthening the National Response to Human Trafficking in the U.S. Annual Report 2011, p. 15, National Human Trafficking Resource Center (NHTRC). Available at Accessed March 30, 2017.
[11] Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, 22 U.S.C. § 7101 (2000).
[12] Dr. Ranee Khooshi Lal Panjabi, Born Free Yet Everywhere in Chains: Global Slavery in the Twenty-First Century, 37 Denver J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 1, 14 (2009) at 18, [stating, there is also the ancillary problem whereby freed slaves can themselves face prosecution, with as illegal immigrants or as criminals where they have been forced to work as prostitutes. Often the victims have no identification papers as their exploiters all too often take their documents away. These legal anomalies whereby victims are criminalized by the law are being redressed in some countries.].
[13] United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Victims of Human Trafficking: T Nonimmigrant Status. Available at Accessed March 30, 2017. [stating, You may be eligible for a T visa if you:
• Are or were a victim of trafficking, as defined by law;
• Are in the United States, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or at a port of entry due to trafficking;
• Comply with any reasonable request from a law enforcement agency for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of human trafficking (or you are under the age of 18, or you are unable to cooperate due to physical or psychological trauma);
• Demonstrate that you would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm if you were removed from the United States; and
• Are admissible to the United States. If not admissible, you may apply for a waiver on a Form I-192, Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Non-Immigrant].
[14] Violence Against Women Office, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Human Trafficking and the T-Visa. Available at http:// Accessed March 30, 2017 [stating, the T-Visa enables a victim of severe forms of trafficking to receive services, work legally in the United States, and potentially earn permanent residency if the victim cooperates with the criminal justice system.].
[15] See 22 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(1)(E)(iii) (2017) (declaring statement made to law enforcement and a willingness to “assist in every reasonable way with the respect to the investigation and prosecution” of local crimes associated with trafficking offenses as meeting the requirement of cooperation for a T-Visa).
[16] Cal. Evid. Code §780 (2017) states: Except as otherwise provided by statute, the court or jury may consider in determining the credibility of a witness any matter that has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of his testimony at the hearing, including but not limited to any of the following:
(a) His demeanor while testifying and the manner in which he testifies.
(b) The character of his testimony.
(c) The extent of his capacity to perceive, to recollect, or to communicate any matter about which he testifies.
(d) The extent of his opportunity to perceive any matter about which he testifies.
(e) His character for honesty or veracity or their opposites.
(f) The existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive.
(g) A statement previously made by him that is consistent with his testimony at the hearing.
(h) A statement made by him that is inconsistent with any part of his testimony at the hearing.
(i) The existence or nonexistence of any fact testified to by him.
(j) His attitude toward the action in which he testifies or toward the giving of testimony.
(k) His admission of untruthfulness.
[17] “Schools” also include scholastic or education-related activities or events and school bus stops that are marked during periods when school children are present at the designated stop.
[18] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Sensitive Locations FAQs. Available at Accessed March 30, 2017. 19 Id. 20 Id.

[Source: The Refuge (May 2017), Volume 1, Issue 3, pages 2-5]

The UK Equality Act and Access to Mental Healthcare for Refugees and Asylum Seekers

By Amy Stoddard Ajayi

The Equality Act

The Equality Act 2010 (“The Act”) is an amalgamation of previous antidiscrimination laws that came into force in the UK on 5th April 2011. It is in place to ensure public services are made accessible to, and meet the needs of all people, regardless of their age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, or pregnancy and maternity.

The Act requires public bodies and their staff to focus on the following as a priority:

• Eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by The Act;
• Advancing equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not.
• Fostering good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not.

All NHS staff receive mandatory training that covers NHS policy on Equality and Diversity, including The Act, but this has not had a sufficient impact on strengthening the equality of care for asylum seeking and refugee people in the UK or for people from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) Groups.

The UK relationship with immigration

The most commonly printed word in the UK press associated with migrants is “criminal”. [1] This tells us something quite significant about the messages that the UK population receive about each other, absorb, and function with in their personal and working lives on a daily basis. The Migration Observatory at Oxford University conducted a European survey in 2016, which demonstrated that out of the UK sample, 69% of respondents thought that immigration levels should be decreased, while only 5% thought that they should be increased. [2]

A 2009 BSA survey regarding immigration found that the UK respondents overestimated ‘non-western’ migrants as being 25% of the population, when the full (western and non-western) foreign born population was actually only approximately 11%.3 This highlights some very real concerns about how our UK population’s inaccurate interpretations of immigration may undo or disable the basic principles of the Equality Act in the work place.

Statutory services and therefore clinicians working within these services are influenced by policy, which is in part, driven by the common negative media and political rhetoric about immigrants. In turn current policy is increasingly being developed to stigmatize and often criminalise people who have experienced forced migration. [4] This is compounded by the media, who use immigrants as pawns in the process of government spin and false alarm resulting in a growing and escalating fear that the nation holds about ‘the other’. [5]

The state of mental healthcare equality in the UK

Refugee and asylum seeking people struggle to obtain both physical and psychological care from UK statutory services and much of the vital work is carried out by underfunded charitable organisations, despite the fact that refugee and asylum seeking people have far greater healthcare needs than most. [6]

Health care clinicians worry about, and are uncomfortable with, their own capacity to meet the needs of asylum seekers and refugees, and can feel disempowered and hopeless in their professional roles. [7] Clinicians can be fearful of the kinds of problems that refugees and asylum seekers often present with, as well as seeing asylum seeking and refugee people as a group with problems that are too complex and difficult to attempt psychological interventions. [8]

From an anthropological perspective, Bridget Anderson discusses the politics of immigration and how the term ‘asylum seeker’ describes both a person’s legal status, and also their value. Anderson comments on how the asylum seeker is conceptualized by the British nation as ‘the failed citizen’ or ‘non-citizen’, a person without value and therefore a person without rights. [9] The results are that comparatively, people from BAME communities are underrepresented and much less likely to be referred to psychological therapies than other groups. [10]

It is without doubt that we have a problem. Worryingly, in a post Brexit world, we face increasingly negative political and media rhetoric that focuses on the population’s socioeconomic fears, often centred on immigration. There is growing pressure on policy makers to reflect these views. This is mirrored in the nation’s growing fear, intolerance and hostility towards people who are conceptualized as outsiders, which is evidenced by the fact that Hate Crime soared by 41% after the Brexit vote. [11]


Research was conducted to investigate the way in which practitioners within NHS statutory psychological services in Greater London and the South east of England respond to specific descriptors that are associated with Asylum Seeking and Refugee People (ASRP).

Clinicians beliefs were measured using RECBT theory, where irrational beliefs are defined as demand based, catastrophic thinking, reduced emotional tolerance and self/other or world depreciation beliefs. Irrational beliefs are theorised as being, inflexible, and inconsistent with reality, rigid, illogical and unhelpful to ones emotional, physical and social health. These beliefs form the primary cause of psychological disturbance, resulting in dysfunctional negative emotions and associated behaviour. [12]

60 Psychological Therapies Service clinicians were surveyed as to their work experiences, concerns, as well as whether a patient was (a) an asylum seeker, (b) a survivor of politically motivated torture, and (c) a patient required a translator. Analysis of the survey revealed the following insights:

When prompted “I can’t stand being tense or nervous and I think tension is unbearable,” the responses demonstrated evidence in support of the literature suggesting that clinicians are uncomfortable with the prospect of working with ASRP and that their anxieties are increased when faced with these prospects. Influencing factors could be:
• Clinicians rely on language in their work as their main tool and anxieties are raised when not being able to use this tool to its full potential.
• The subject of politically motivated torture intimidates the clinician.

When prompted “I deserve to access help and care more than some other people,” the responses suggested that participants (clinicians) believe people who are seeking asylum, have experienced politically motivated torture and require translating service are less entitled to access help and care than the norm. Here it is possible to find a relationship between Anderson’s suggestions that ASRP are conceptualized as people without rights, impacting on the general populations notions of entitlement and worth when evaluating ‘who’ and ‘what’ we are. [13]

From these results, it is possible to understand how and why the types of beliefs that the population, and therefore at least some of the clinicians working within statutory services hold may well impact on the fact that ASRP struggle to access psychological care in the UK.

When prompted “If I fail to help others, it means I am hopeless and a failure at my job,” the responses suggested that if the clinician feels disempowered in their ability to help, then they may be more likely to avoid this type of patient.

Interestingly, there are lower responses to groups where a translator was needed or where the patient was a victim of politically motivated torture. Influencing factors could be:
• Clinicians are more forgiving of themselves with these groups because of the perceived difficulty of treating the patient.
• Clinicians have stronger beliefs about helping people in groups in the norm or merely applying for asylum than those who have suffered torture or require a translator.

When prompted “If I get frustrated because I don’t understand someone else’s cultural values, that is evidence of the fact that I am a narrow minded discriminatory person,” responses support the idea that clinicians become anxious about being viewed as discriminatory and may be more likely to appraise themselves harshly if they struggle to understand other peoples’ cultural values. It could be argued that this could lead to an avoidance of this anxiety and therefore these patient groups.


Outcomes from this research support the need for future exploration into questioning whether inadequate psychological care of ASRP in the UK is, in part, driven and maintained by policy makers, senior managers and clinicians lack of rationality and tolerance when faced with working with ASRP, and the common problems that they bring. This could in part be driven by a lack of available accurate information about ASRP within statutory services, coupled with overt denigration and mistrust induced by government spin and media coverage impacting on individuals’ personal belief systems.

By exploring these questions further, and in particular how belief change can play critical role in how we engage with, value and respond to each other, it may provide an avenue to make it easier for practitioners to feel less daunted by working with ASRP. Hopefully this could facilitate the development of a better, clearer understanding of how to improve the services that ASRP receive.

Political correctness may have the unintended affect of masking the problem, because people become afraid to discuss matters relating to equality, but maintain and hold onto private ideologies and inflexibilities that significantly impact on the level of care that vulnerable people receive from the services that they access.

A more unified approach requires an open platform to have these discussions, challenge our ideologies, establishments, and policy makers in a non-threatening and constructive way in order to increase equality of care for all within the UK mental health system.

About the author

Amy Stoddard
Amy Stoddard-Ajayi has a degree in Anthropology and was selected to train for her Masters in Rational Emotive and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy under the world recognised Professor Windy Dryden. Amy is currently a Senior Public Services Consultant to the NHS, charitable and the private sectors, specialising in service development for mental and physical health services, where she plays a key role in supporting the design and development of effective mental and physical health care across the country as well as in international settings. She has conducted important research into advancing mental health care for refugee and migrant communities, written exhaustively on matters of equality, and is published on the subject of improving mental health care by working with diaspora groups in the BMJ.


[1] Migration Observatory, Oxford University (2013) Migration in the News: Portrayals of Immigrants, Migrants, Asylum Seekers and Refugees in National
British Newspapers, 2010-2012.
[2] Migration Observatory, (2016) Briefing on Public Opinion Towards Immigration: Oxford University, Oxford, England. Available at:
[3] Id.
[4] Patel A and Mahtani A (2007 ) The Psychologist. Special Addition: The politics of working with refugee survivors of torture. Volume 20 – Part 3
[5] Greenslade R (2005) Seeking Scapegoats. The coverage of asylum in the UK press. Institute for Public Policy Research, London.
[6] Joint Committee on Human Rights: Tenth Report of Session (2006-2007) The Treatment of Asylum Seekers, Joint Committee on Human Rights, House of Lords, House of Commons, volume 11: Oral and written Evidence.
[7] Rees, M., Blackburn, P., Lab, D. and Herlihy, J. (2007). Working with asylum-seekers in a clinical setting. The Psychologist, 20, 162–163.
[8] Tribe, R., Patel, N. (2007) ‘Refugees and asylum seekers’ The Psychologist, Special Edition. 20 (3) 149– 151.
[9] Anderson, B. (2013) Us and Them? The Dangerous Politics of Immigration Control, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[10] Joint Committee on Human Rights: Tenth Report of Session (2006-2007) The Treatment of Asylum Seekers, Joint Committee on Human Rights, House of Lords, House of Commons, volume 11: Oral and written Evidence.
[11] The Guardian, ‘Hate crimes soared after EU referendum, Home Office figures confirm, (13 October 2016), available at:
[12] Dryden W., Branch., R. (2008). The fundamentals of rational emotive behavior therapy. Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons. Chichester, England
[13]  Anderson, B. (2013) Us and Them? The Dangerous Politics of Immigration Control, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[Source: The Refuge (May 2017), Volume 1, Issue 3, pages 6-10]

Welcome to The Refuge

By Andrew Solis

Dear Reader,

The Refuge is the revival of the IRLC’s monthly newsletter that will brief attorneys, students, and scholars of the trending topics in international refugee and asylum law. The mission of The Refuge is to provide a light, easy-to-read, review of trending news stories and legal developments that will keep readers up to date with refugee and asylum law developments.

Last issue we began to explore international efforts and policy changes addressing refugees and asylum seekers. This issue will address concerns about changes to ICE enforcement policies and roadblocks that refugees and asylum seekers face when trying to receive mental healthcare.

Thanks for reading, and please take a look at Page 11 [edit: see call for submissions] for more information about The Refuge and how you can participate.

Andrew Solis
Vice-Chair, Editor

[Source: The Refuge (May 2017), Volume 1, Issue 3, page 1]

Welcome to The Refuge – Volume 1, Issue 2

Dear Reader,

The Refuge is the revival of the IRLC’s monthly newsletter that will brief attorneys, students, and scholars of the trending topics in international refugee and asylum law. The mission of The Refuge is to provide a light, easy-to-read, review of trending news stories and legal developments that will keep readers up to date with refugee and asylum law developments.

Last issue, we discussed a great deal about the Trump administration’s executive orders regarding visa issuance targeting certain countries and the refugee program. While the future of American immigration and refugee policy remains a trending and important issue, we are glad to present a variety of international and domestic developments.

Thanks for reading, and please take a look at Page 11 for more information about The Refuge and how you can participate.

Andrew Solis
Vice-Chair, Editor

Shrinking Safe Spaces for Individuals Fleeing Gender-Based Persecution

By Sherizaan Minwalla

Alisa [1] fled from Iraq seeking protection in Jordan not because of the sectarian violence, which was a problem most Iraqis living in Baghdad faced, but because she faced years of sexual abuse and was imprisoned three years for being gay.  Alisa, born Ahmed, never felt that she was a boy growing up in Iraq. However, others perceived her as effeminate and gay, and she faced many abuses throughout her life in Iraq. Once she was released from prison, she left the country to escape a forced marriage to her cousin, and sought refugee protection in Jordan. To attempt to protect herself, she expressed herself as a man, except for her long hair, which she kept tied up and under a hat. Her attempts failed and Alisa faced persistent harassment and sexual assault in Jordan for being perceived as gay. The US government denied Alisa’s request for resettlement based on security grounds, presumably because she had a criminal record, although she does not know for certain, since the US government does not disclose the basis of a security denial to the refugee.

Women and girls in particular, as well as those who face persecution due to LGBTQI status, face unique challenges to accessing international refugee protection for reasons linked to their gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation.  The barriers to refugee protection are not new, but are exacerbated by the current massive flows of people fleeing protracted conflict, and by the response of receiving countries to restrict asylum and refugee protection. [2]

“The vast majority of people confronting gender-based violence find it difficult to access protection.”

The reasons people migrate are often complex and varied, but gender-based violence compels many people around the world to flee their countries when confronted with sexual violence in conflict, by government actors, or gender-based violence perpetrated by relatives or acquaintances in their homes and communities.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of people confronting gender-based violence find it difficult to access protection under the current international legal framework.

To obtain refugee projection, a person must meet the legal definition of a ‘refugee’ under the United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, [3] defined as:

“[A] person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…” [4]

Claims involving gender-based persecution have evolved over the years, as gender alone is not a protected ground. [5] A person can include ‘gender’ in conjunction with any of the five protected grounds, although many gender-persecution cases, where women are abused and threatened for asserting their rights and resisting traditionally imposed roles, frequently fall into the ‘protected social group’ (PSG) category and /or political opinion.

“The first challenge…is to cross an international border…In many countries, women and girls cannot travel alone.”

Because a person must be physically outside her country of nationality to qualify for refugee protection, [6] the first challenge for a person fleeing gender-based persecution is to cross an international border. In many countries, women and girls cannot travel alone, because they may not be able to obtain identity and travel documents, it may be against the law or tradition to travel unaccompanied by a male relative, or, as in places like Iraq and Syria, the security situation poses significant risks, and there are many criminals engaged in human trafficking who exploit women and girls who are alone and vulnerable.

Once in a country of refuge, a UNHCR officer will interview an individual to determine if she is eligible for refugee protection and possible eventual resettlement to a third safe country; according to UNHCR, fewer than one percent of refugees are resettled to another country. UNHCR provides detailed guidance for staff conducting refugee status determinations (RSD) interviews in cases involving gender-persecution claims. [7] This guidance clearly demonstrates the full range of gender-persecution claims that can arise under any of the protected grounds; it also provides solid guidance on how to adjudicate such claims procedurally, paying particular attention to issues of shame, trauma, fear of reprisals from family members, and the need to create a safe space when conducting RSD interviews. [8]

Despite the useful guidance provided to officers conducting RSD determinations, victims seeking refugee status based on gender-based persecution face hurdles when officers bring bias, stereotypes, and an insufficient training to RSD interviews and adjudication of gender-persecution claims. Consider the case of Ana, an Iraqi Kurdish woman in her 30s who, before this current refugee crisis in the Middle East, fled from a forced marriage and years of abuse by her father and elder brother. Ana had a boyfriend and was no longer a virgin, putting her at heightened risk of honor-based violence from her family. When she could no longer put off the marriage, she fled to Turkey to apply for refugee protection, hoping she would be resettled to a third country.  Following her interview, Ana waited for one year for UNHCR’s decision, denying her refugee protection on the basis that the officer did not find Ana to be credible. The officer stated that she did not find it believable that an educated woman able to work and travel could also face a forced marriage.  The widespread lack of understanding about the dynamics of gender-based persecution, combined with stereotypes about victim profiles, presents serious challenges for people seeking refugee protection due to gender-based persecution.

“In many cases, women and girls are trafficked
into prostitution.”

During the waiting period, women, girls and LGBTQI persons face heightened risks of exploitation and abuse including human trafficking. Alisa was gang raped in Jordan, and faced constant sexual harassment in public and threats of abuse.  Many refugees live in deplorable and unsafe conditions in tented camps or in substandard housing among the host population. Host country governments usually prevent refugees from legally working, leading many to work in unsafe conditions for low wages. In many cases, women and girls are trafficked into prostitution by their families, landlords, law enforcement and security officers, especially those working in refugee camps with access to vulnerable populations.

Until the recent influx of refugees into Europe, most of the world’s refugees (86%) have been hosted in the Global South, in neighboring countries with fewer economic resources. [9]  As countries in the Global North severely curtail access to refugee and asylum protection, women, girls, and LGBTQI persons who are some of the most vulnerable refugees, will face greater barriers to protection. Given the many risks facing persons fleeing gender-based persecution, it is important to ensure access to safety in countries of refuge, led by humanitarian actors and host governments. It is also critical to ensure that officers to interview and adjudicate refugee, asylum, and resettlement requests are properly trained to identify and understand gender-persecution claims in accordance with UNHCR guidance, and that there is good oversight to flag improper denials such as the one that was given to Ana.

To address the unique barriers facing persons who want to flee gender-based persecution but cannot move, it is essential to address the flaws under the current system by extending protection to those who are at grave risk of harm while they are still within their country of nationality.  This will not only protect those who would qualify as refugees except for the fact they cannot cross an international border, but it would also reduce further instances of abuse they are likely to face if they attempt such a dangerous journey.

Alisa joined the exodus of refugees fleeing the Middle East to Europe in 2015, and was recently granted residency for three years by the German government. After Ana was denied refugee protection in Turkey, she returned to Iraq, and fled again to a European country where she was able to obtain asylum protection.

About the author
Sherizaan Minwalla is a Practitioner-in-Residence at the International Human Rights Law Clinic at the American University’s Washington College of Law. She lived and worked on human rights and humanitarian programs supporting refugees and internally displaced persons in Iraq for eight years. In the US she worked for the National Immigrant Justice Center and the Tahirih Justice Center on protecting immigrant survivors of gender-based violence.

[1] Names used in this article have been changed to protect the identity of the individuals.
[2] Randall Hansen, Migration Policy Institute, Constrained by its Roots: How the Origins of How the Global Asylum System Limit Contemporary Protection 2-4 (2017), available at
[3] U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150 [hereinafter UN Refugees Convention] (eliminating the geographic and temporal limitations of the Convention’s application); U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 (extending the UN Refugees Convention’s protection to people made refugees due to events occurring after January 1, 1951).
[4] Id.
[5] See UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1, 80 (December 2011).
[6] Id. at 18 (“It is a general requirement for refugee status that an applicant who has a nationality be outside the country of his nationality.  There are no exceptions to this rule. International protection cannot come into play as long as a person is within the territorial jurisdiction of his home country.”).
[7] Id. at 80-89.
[8] Id.
[9] Hansen at 12 (citing UNHCR, Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2015, 18).

[Source: The Refuge (April 2017), Volume 1, Issue 2, pages 8-11]

A Balance of Power

By Rekha Sharma-Crawford

To say that immigration law is inextricably tied to politics would be an understatement. In the days that followed the inauguration of a new President, US immigration policies took a drastic shift in direction.  Not only were there sweeping executive orders issued restricting the travel and visa issuance policies of the US, but there was also a clear message of caution sent to those within the US as well.  The message from the very top was simple: if you had no status in the US, you were now considered a priority for removal.  Period.

It was as if the years of hidden frustration and discretionary restraint that was imposed on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents, was suddenly released.  Soon, reports of Immigration raids filled the media outlets and photos of families in crisis began to fill Facebook pages across the nation.  Much like the fear and paranoia following the 9-11 attacks, immigrant communities again began to feel the pressure of enforcement upon them.  But, something had changed in the more than a decade that had passed since the attacks on the World Trade Center.  Popular sentiment, perhaps already startled awake in the aftermath of the executive orders restricting travel, was unwilling to simply sit back and let darkness again fall over immigrant communities.  Lawyers across the nation were engaged.

The US Constitution recognizes two occupations as the bedrock of the checks and balances system; journalists and lawyers. Journalists hold the power of the pen, while lawyers hold the power of the courts.  The Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, with its broad-brush changes to who would be subject to ICE detention, its re-authorization of the Secured Communities program, and its failure to defer to States on pending criminal matters involving noncitizens, seems to be set on a collision course with the Constitution. [1] Lawyers, organically, began to do what lawyers do: they began preparations to address, head on, issues of access to counsel, state’s rights, unlawful detentions, illegal searches, rushed judgements and due process violations.

“Neither did anything to ease the tensions
rising in immigrant communites

Approximately a month after the Executive Order was issued, the newly minted Homeland Security Secretary issued a memorandum, Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest, clarifying its scope and implementation procedures. [2] But, the memorandum was as flawed as the order itself and together, neither did anything to ease the tensions rising in immigrant communities throughout the nation.  Both, however, gave lawyers many fronts of attack to try and stop the desecration communities would face if ICE’s increasing powers were unchecked.

Beyond the general constitutional concerns that are inherent in the Order and the memorandum, there is also a “poison pill” that threatens the foundation of federal and state cooperation. The policy, in essence, pits the state functions of criminal accountability, against the federal goal of expedited and streamlined deportation.  The play for power by the federal government is so focused that financial carrots are being both dangled at the state as well as being used as a stick to force compliance.  In one known instance, where a Texas municipality refused to succumb to such tactics, ICE agents targeted its communities with stricter enforcement tactics. [3] As information regarding these increased efforts became known, a general societal outcry began to take place in condemnation of ICE’s actions.  Indeed, times had changed in both the quickness of the media’s ability to report these matters and the effectiveness of legal repudiations.

“It demands that state officials, arguably, ignore constitutional protections.

The next frontier in the legal challenges to this Executive Order will likely involve the issue of detainers.  Detainers, arguably the crown jewel in ICE’s enforcement arsenal, are used to compel the continued detention and transfer of a state criminal detainee to ICE, regardless of conviction or completion of state proceedings. [4]  New policy guidance on detainers, announced on March 24, 2017, builds on the Executive Order and enforcement memorandum to complete ICE’s efforts to heighten enforcement of immigration laws regardless of the legal soundness of the mechanisms used. [5]  The new detainer form, the mechanism used by ICE to request a state jailer to continue to hold an individual released by the state for up to 48 hours for the purpose of ICE assuming custody of that person, will go into effect on April 2, 2017. [6]  It demands that state officials, arguably, ignore constitutional protections against unlawful seizures and simply continue to act as an extension of ICE in depriving someone of their basic constitutional rights; the policy will undoubtedly again cause attorneys to rise to the occasion and mount fresh legal challenges.

In the little over two months of this administration, the revealed agenda will require lawyers to steadfastly approach ICE’s enforcement activities with an eye toward preserving constitutional protections and accountability.  Given the potential these policy changes hold to tear apart whole communities, there cannot be even the suggestion of legal apathy.  As the weeks and months go forward, the level of legal attacks necessary to preserve constitutional protections in the wake of these policy shifts are anticipated to rise. But if the litigation over the administration’s travel ban orders is any indication, the resilience of the judiciary and the lawyers who continue the work of keeping the balance of power in check, is robust.


About the author
Rekha Sharma-Crawford is a passionate advocate for immigration rights and has been an active immigration law litigator since 2000. With broad experiences as an assistant district attorney and private practice attorney, Rekha is a frequent speaker and lecturer on matters of immigration law. Rekha received her Juris Doctorate from Michigan State University College of Law in 1993. Rekha is licensed to practice in Kansas, Texas, Michigan, the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous federal circuit courts. Rekha is an instructor at the American Immigration Council’s Litigation Institute and active in AILA both as a speaker and author. In 2012, Rekha and her law partner husband, Michael started a non-profit legal clinic for those facing deportation through the Kansas City Immigration Court.


[1] Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements (Jan. 25, 2017),
[2] Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest, D.H.S. Sec. John Kelley (Feb. 20, 2017),
[3] Lyanne A. Guarecuco, Federal Judge: ICE Conducted Austin Raids in Retaliation Against Sheriff’s New Policy, TEXAS OBSERVER (March 20, 2017),
[4] 8 USC 1357 (“Powers of immigration officers and employees”).
[5] Policy 10074.2 Issuance of Immigration Detainers by ICE Immigration Officers, ICE Act. Dir. Thomas Homan (March 24, 2017),
[6] ICE Form I-247A,

[Source: The Refuge (April 2017), Volume 1, Issue 2, pages 5-7]


By Adam Severson

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) currently screens asylum seekers in Bangkok in a process known as “refugee status determination” (RSD). However, in January, Thailand’s cabinet approved a proposal to implement a domestic refugee screening mechanism. [1] Details are scant, but the proposed mechanism will replace UNHCR RSD—at least in part—and may impact many of the more than four thousand asylum seekers currently in Bangkok. [2] UNHCR has applauded the move and pledged support, but the new mechanism has not received the scrutiny it deserves. Refugee advocates and the international community should be watching closely and working with the Thai government to ensure the mechanism meets international standards for two reasons.

“The government has forcibly returned asylum seekers…to countries where they risk persecution.”

First, while Thailand has hosted refugees for decades, it has a poor record of providing them adequate protection. [3] The government will not accede to 1951 Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol, and it treats asylum seekers and refugees as illegal immigrants, keeping many—including children—in detention. [4]  Moreover, in recent years the government has forcibly returned asylum seekers [5] and even recognized refugees [6] to countries where they risk persecution. The UN Human Rights Committee raised many of these issues in its recent review of Thailand’s implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Thai government has complained that UNHCR’s RSD process is too slow and that the new screening mechanism is needed. The complaint is valid—UNHCR is under-resourced—but there are concerns that the new mechanism may compromise fairness in order to hasten decision-making. Refugee advocates and the international community should devote resources and expertise to ensure this does not happen. The goal should be a more efficient screening mechanism, not merely a faster one. Improving efficiency means increasing the decision-making rate while maintaining substantive and procedural fairness.

Second, Thailand’s new mechanism is likely to impact refugee protection in the region. Asia hosts nearly four million refugees; however, only twenty of forty-five Asian countries have signed or acceded to the Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol, and many allow UNHCR to conduct RSD. [7] Regional governments wanting to create their own refugee screening mechanisms will likely look to Thailand’s example. Refugee advocates and the international community should work with the Thai government to ensure the example is a good one: a mechanism that is fast but fair.

About the author
Adam is a graduate of The University of Colorado
Law School. From 2012 to 2015, he represented asylum seekers applying for UNHCR protection in Egypt, Thailand, and Indonesia. He has worked for a variety of NGOs, including Africa and Middle East Refugee Assistance (AMERA), Jesuit Refugee Service-Thailand, and St. Andrews Refugee Services (StARS). From 2015 to 2017, Adam was Senior Legal Advisor at Justice Centre Hong Kong, an NGO that provides legal and psychosocial support to asylum seekers and advocates on behalf of refugees and victims of human trafficking in Hong Kong. Adam is currently a Legal Consultant for Justice Centre.


[1] UNHCR Welcomes Thailand’s Approval of Framework for Refugee Screening Mechanism, THE NATION (Jan. 16, 2017),
[2] Thailand Factsheet, ASIA PACIFIC REFUGEE RIGHTS NETWORK (March 2017),
[3] Ad Hoc and Inadequate: Thailand’s Treatment of Refugees and Asylum Seekers, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (Sept. 12, 2012),
[4] Chris Rogers, The Christians Held in Thailand after Fleeing Pakistan, BBC NEWS, THAILAND (Feb. 26, 2016),
[5] Matt Shiavenza, Why Thailand Forced Uighurs to Return to China, THE ATLANTIC (July 12, 2015),
[6] Aubrey Belford & Amy S. Lefevre, Thailand Knew Deported Chinese Were Refugees Awaiting Resettlement in Canada: U.N. Document, REUTERS (Nov. 30, 2015),
[7] Asia and the Pacific, UNHCR (2015)

[Source: The Refuge (April 2017), Volume 1, Issue 2, pages 4-5]

Private Resettlement: An Alternative Refugee Solution?

By Anna Szabo

In the wake of the chaos following President Trump’s recent travel bans, Australians have been tempted to temporarily tune out the mess that is our own refugee situation closer to home. While the detainees held at offshore processing centres continue to be treated as animals – just over two weeks ago, Refugee Action Coalition reported that a riot had erupted amongst Manus Island prisoners over the new food distribution system [1] – the long-term problem facing the Australian government of resettling the backlog of refugees remains a drawn-out, overly-complicated, and ineffective process.

In 2015, 65 million people were forced
to flee their homes..

In 2015, 65 million people were forced to flee their homes, a record high since World War II. [2] Under the UNHCR’s Resettlement Program, the Australian government recently agreed to raise its resettlement quota from 13,750 refugees in 2015-2016 to almost 19,000 by 2018-2019. [3] But while this action received considerable national support, the damning State of the Nation report released by the Refugee Council of Australia advised that the biggest challenge facing our government in 2017 is going to be reframing the refugee crisis as a global, and not just domestic, policy issue and correspondingly implementing a sustainable resettlement approach. [4]

For most Australians, there is little we can do to influence decisions at a governmental level other than adding our voices to the growing disparity of people demanding a change in our immigration laws. But what we could do is privately fund the visa and resettlement costs for a refugee to enter and settle in our country.

Private refugee sponsorship is not a new idea; it’s a program that has been flourishing in Canada since 1979, and the Refugee Council USA is currently trying to get if off the ground in the United States (although between the “merit-based” immigration system offered by the Trump administration and the recent migration bans, the future of American refugee policy is highly uncertain at present). [5] On our own shores, the Department of Border Protection and Immigration has been trialling a Community Proposal Pilot since 2013 with great success. [6]

Results so far have shown that there is a higher and faster grant rate for visas.

One faith-based and four migration service organisations have been working with families and community groups willing to assist with the cost of visa applications and provide practical and emotional assistance to refugees applying to enter Australia. The demand has exceeded available places in the program, and results so far have shown that there is a higher and faster grant rate for visas than under other government resettlement options.

In Canada it is recognised that the sponsorship arrangement is mutually beneficial, allowing refugees to be welcomed into society while generating social cohesion as active citizens are engaged in the nation-building process of understanding more about people different to themselves. [7]  However, while the principle of additionality is applied to treat the resettlement scheme as a supplement to Canada’s overall national intake, the 500 spaces in the Australian pilot program make up part of our quota within our UNHCR Resettlement Program obligations. Government reviews of the Australian pilot program in the future need to focus on applying this principle of additionality, as the potential for enabling the resettlement of hundreds of additional refugees at lower costs to the government is substantial.

“There has never been a more critical time to implement private sponsorship.

At the Refugee Alternatives Conference held by the UNSW Kaldor Centre last February, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission Gillian Triggs advised [8] that there has never been a more critical time to implement private sponsorship.

The national outcry and the desire to do more is there. Unless we learn from the examples of progressive, socially-minded countries like Canada, we will fail to meet our international responsibilities and fail to adapt to the global climate that is changing and adapting around us.

About the author

Anna has worked for a variety of non-government organizations including World Vision Australia and anti-trafficking organization the Freedom Project, and is currently Global Consulting Director for 180 Degrees Consulting, the world’s leading provider in social impact consultancy for non-profits and social enterprises. Anna does volunteer work for Amnesty International Australia and Refugee Action Coalition, and is completing her Masters in Human Rights Law & Policy in Sydney, Australia.



[1] Refugee Action Coalition, ‘“We are not animals” – Protest erupts in Manus detention centre’, March 19, 2017.
[2] UN News Centre, ‘Unprecedented 65 million people displaced by war and persecution in 2015’, June 20, 2016.
[3] Parliament of Australia, ‘Refugee resettlement to Australia: what are the facts?’, Sep. 7, 2016.
[4] Refugee Council of Australia, ‘State of the Nation 2017: Refugees and people seeking asylum in Australia’, Feb. 22, 2017.
[5] The New York Times, ‘How Trump’s ‘Merit-Based’ Immigration System Might Work’, March 1, 2017.
[6] The Conversation, ‘Private resettlement models offer a way for Australia to lift its refugee intake’, Sep. 19, 2016.
[7] The New York Times, ‘Refugees Encounter a Foreign Word: Welcome’, July 7, 2016.
[8] Tweet by Refugee Council of Australia about Gillian Triggs, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, at the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law ‘Refugee Alternatives Conference’, Feb. 22, 2017.

[Source: The Refuge (April 2017), Volume 1, Issue 2, pages 2-3]

Tech Companies Tag-Team against EO

By Andrew Solis

97 tech companies in the U.S. joined together and filed an Amicus Brief in support Washington and Minnesota’s case against Trump’s EO 13769. [1] Major players include Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Intel, Lyft, Uber, LinkedIn, Microsoft, and Netflix. The tech companies began their brief by reminding the 9th Circuit that the United States is “nation of immigrants” and that the immigration policy reflected that we as a nation are descendants of immigrants of refugees. [2] However, they were not shy about their own commercial interests in being able to hire top talent from around the world. The brief explained how the immediate and unpredictable implementation of EO created substantial disruptions to the business operations of these tech companies. [3] The EO created uncertainty in the future of these companies’ ability to hire “some of the world’s best talent” and negatively affected their ability to compete in the global market place. [4]

The tech companies explained how they operate in a global market place and the practice of hiring and sending employees around the world was essential for their growth. They expressed fear of retaliation that would affect their global business operations citing to a General Electric deal in Iraq that was being harmed by the EO. [5] While the EO attempts to protect the U.S. from external threats, the unpredictability of the EO is hurting American companies and limiting their ability to secure top talent and remain competitive in a global marketplace.


About the Author

Andrew Solis is an Associate Attorney at the Law Office of James N. Vasilas where he practices family and removal based immigration law. Andrew Solis graduated from Southern Illinois University Magna Cum Laude and served as an Articles Editor on SIU Law Journal. Andrew Solis currently serves as a Vice-Chair in the ABA International Refugee Law Committee and as Editor of The Refuge.

[1] Brief for Technology Companies and Other Business as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees, State of Washington v. Donald J. Trump, 2:17-cv-00141-JLR (9th Circuit 2016).
[2] Id. at 1-2.
[3] Id. at 8-11.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 12.

[Source: The Refuge (March 2017), Volume 1, Edition 1, pages 10-11]

Trump’s EO and U.S. Obligations to the Rest of the World

By Emily Patterson

The President’s executive orders on immigration have rightfully caused a whirlwind of concern and commentary. From the discrimination inherent in their terms to the chaos witnessed in their implementation, the President’s actions set a clear tone for how immigration will be treated during his term. One aspect of these actions deserves attention: the right to seek asylum and what that means in terms of international human rights law.

“…the United States has made the right to request asylum a matter of law.”

Having effectively acceded to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees by virtue of formal accession to its 1967 Protocol, the United States has made the right to request asylum a matter of law. But a law has no meaning if the right it protects cannot be invoked. And the January 25 Executive Order 13767 “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Provisions” [1] raises serious concerns about how claims for asylum will be treated. Section 11 of the EO on “Parole, Asylum, and Removal” says, “It is the policy of the executive branch to end the abuse of parole and asylum provisions currently used to prevent the lawful removal of removable aliens.” It suggests parole and asylum provisions have been “illegally exploited.” [2]

On February 20, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued a memo on implementation of the EO which allows individual immigration officers to order someone removed “without further hearing or review” if the officer “determines that an arriving alien is inadmissible.” [3] Though the memo excepts unaccompanied children, those who “indicate an intention to apply for asylum” or relief under the Convention Against Torture, or those that claim to be US citizens or otherwise in possession of “a valid immigration status,” there are potentially grave implications associated with removal decisions. And the lack of due process and reviewability raise serious human rights concerns.

The 1951 Refugee Convention prohibits States from penalizing refugees “who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.” [4] As well, States may not unnecessarily restrict the movement of refugees within their territory. [5] States may expel refugees “on grounds of national security or public order.” [6] However, such an expulsion is permissible “only in pursuance of the decision reached in accordance with due process of law.” As well, a refugee has the right “to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to an be represented for that purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority.” [7] Further, “the contracting state shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country.” [8]

It is questionable whether granting an immigration officer the power to make an apparently un-appealable decision complies with the terms of the Convention. It certainly does not appear to give an individual requesting protection from persecution a reasonable degree of due process—or any process at all.

Aside from the legal “technicalities,” policy makers should remember the legal “rationalities.” The protection of refugees aims to mitigate the irreparable damage suffered by an individual who has faced or who may face persecution: torture, discrimination, abuse. These are not minor inconveniences.

Those who work with refugees speak in terms of “protection.” Acquiring “protection” is the goal of laws and policies targeting refugees. An early step in achieving “protection” is the acquisition of legal status. Policies that make it more difficult to merely request that status forget the principle underlying “protection,” principles eloquently set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

[R]ecognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

[D]isregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

[I]t is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.

PattersonAbout the Author

Emily Patterson is an international human rights lawyer based in Houston, Texas and currently serves as a vice-chair for the IRLC. She has worked on human rights and judicial reform in Kosovo, Somalia, Georgia, Montenegro, and the United States.

[2] Sec. 11(a)
[3] DHS Secretary Memo on Implementing the President’s Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies, 20 Feb. 2017, p. 5-6.
[4] Article 31(1).
[5] Article 31(2).
[6] Article 32(2).
[7] Article 32(3).
[8] Article 32(3).

[Source: The Refuge (March 2017), Volume 1, Edition 1, pages 8-10]