bill frelick - rethinking us refugee admissions

8/6/2019 Bill Frelick - Rethinking US Refugee Admissions

1/13

W ORLD REFUGEE SURVEY2002Most of the world's refugees long for the day when they can finally return home safely.

This woman prepares to repatriate to northern Somalia after many years living as arefugee in a remote corner of Ethiopia. Photo: USCR/j. Frushone

The views expressed in signed articles inthe Wor ld R efu ge e ~ ur ve y are not necessarily those of USeR or IRSA. For additional copiesof the Wo rl d R efu ge e S ur ve y, write: USeR, 1717Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 200,Washington, De 20036-2003,call 1-800-307-4712, or visit our website at www.refugees.org. Singlecopies: $25.00 each. Bulkand special rates available on request.

Immigrat ion and Refugee Services of America 2002ISSN: 0197-5439; ISBN: 0-936548-13-4 Federal Identificat ion Number: 13-1878704
http://www.refugees.org./http://www.refugees.org./


2/13

M a k i n g a D i f f e r e n c e i n t h e L i v e s o f R e f u ~ e e s T o d a yThe U.S. Committee for Refugees (USeR) defends the rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced _personsworldwide. USER's coremandate.isto ensure that: 1) ' first asylum must be preserved; 2) asylum must be safe and secure;3) internally displaced people must be protected and assisted: 4 ') safe and dignified durable solutions must be sought;and 5) the horror-s that cause refugee flows must Q I ? stopped, We base our mandate on the following principles:

Refugees have basic human rights. Mostfundamentally, no person with a well-founded fear of persecutionshould-be subjected to forcible return (re!o-ulemrmt) to a place where he or she would be persecuted. Asylum seekers have the right to a fair and impartial hearing to determine their refugee status. All uprooted victims of hu man conflict, regardless of whether they cross a-border, have the right to humanetreatment, as well as adequate protection an d assistance.

USCR is a program ofImmigration and Refugee Services of America, aprivate, nonprofit-organization. For 44 years,USCR has been advocating on behalf of uprooted people regardless of their nationality, race, religion, ideology, orsocial group.In 2:001, USeR gathered on-site documentation in Afghanistan, Australia, Belgium, Burundi, Eritrea,' Ethiopia,Indonesia, Jordan, K'enya, Lebanon, Macedonia, Norway, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Thailand, the United Kingdom,and Yugoslavia (Kosovo).FolLowing a site visit , USCR works to mobilize a quick effectiveresponse to the refugee emergency from the internationalcommunity. USCRmakes refugee needs known to world governments, U.S. policy makers, humanitarian organizations,arid thegeneral public UseR holds public briefings, updates government officials, and testifies before Congress. Tomobilize the public, USeR ensures that refugees are in the news through staff appearances on television and radio,as well as in newspapers and magazines and on the internet. We speak directly to the American: public in scheols,places 0f worship, and community meetings. We distribute our analysis 'through USeR publications such as theWorld Refugee SU 1 V6 Y >Refugee Rep01~, topic-specific issue __papers,regular updates, and our website (www.refugees.org).

T h e u s e R S t a f f O u r B o a r d a n d A d v i s o r sLavinia Limon Joel Frushone O f f i c e r s A d v i s o r y C o u n c i lExecutive Director Policy Analyst Lawrence Rosenthal Isabel AllendeEskinder Negash lana Mason Chairman Bob Arnot, MDChief Operating Officer Policy Analyst Ed AsnerBill Frelick Melanie Nezer Thomas H. Belote, Esq. John BalesDirector, U.S. Committee Consulting Analyst Secretary Beverlee Bruce, PhDfor Refugees and Editor, Caroline Brennan Muzaffar Chishti Senator Dick ClarkWorld Refugee Survey Senior Development Associate Treasurer Placido DomingoHiram A. Ruiz Alyson Springer Lily O'Boyle Paul FiremanCommunications Director Survey Statistician Vice Chair Austin HearstWade HendersonAlison Seiler Koula Papanicolas Barbara HendricksDirector of Administration Graphic Design B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s Charles K . KamasakiJeff Drumtra and Production Manager Joanne de Asis Yeou Cheng Ma, MDSenior Policy Analyst Eunice Kim Reynaldo Glover Michael MarekSteve Edminster Graphic Designer Berjoohy Haigazian Cesar PelliPolicy Analyst AndyPino Louis Henkin, Emer i tus Dith PranMargaret Emery Marisa Olivo Patricia Irvin, Esq Eric ReevesPolicy Analyst and Assistants to the Editor Edward B. Marks Roger RosenblattAssistant Editor, Raci Say Carol H. Pitchersky Dane F. SmithWorld Refugee Surve)' Administrative Assistant Peter M. Thompson Paul Tierney

Interns: Heather Barry, Milko Chatalbashev, Jerome Harter Leaford C. Williams AlekWekJennifer Michele, Jennifer Moore, Jennifer Ramsey, Randi r Elie WieselRauthbaum, Ir fan Rizvi, Stephanie Saenger , Darren Teshima,Nancy Vogt, Regine Webster , Kara Wonman.


3/13

u . s . C o m m i t t e e f o r R e f u ~ e e s" W o % l d R e i u l e e I U I ~ ~ z O ' o z

Map of Sources of the World'sRefugees and InternallyDisplaced PersonsSignatories to the UN RefugeeConvention and Protocol

A R T I C L E SThe Year in Reviewb y B i ll F r e li ckA Survivor Speaks for AllWho Diedby the Roadsideb y La t vi an President VairaVike-Freiberga

14

20

Everything Has Changedb y L a vin ia L im o nRethinking U,S. Refugee Admissions:Quantity and Qualityby Bil l FrelickRefugee Law Is Not Immigration Lawb y J am e s C. HathawayRefugee Law in South Africa:Making the Road of the Refugee Longer?by Lee Anne de la H unt 46

24

28

38

C O U N T R Y R E P O R T SAfricaEastAsia and the PacificSouth and Central AsiaMiddle EastEuropeThe Americas and the Caribbean

52110142162186260

D I R E I T O R Y 282COVERPHOTO: Internally displaced persons in Afghanistan, among the estimated I million Afghans displaced within their country in 200 I.Credit: VII/Alexandra BoulatBACKCOVERPHOTOS:USCR/J. Frushone and UNHCRTable of Contents: UNHCR,VII/Alexandra Boulat and USCR/J. Frushone Page I: UNHCR Page 4: USCR/Hiram A. Ruiz Page 5: USCR/J. FrushonePage 6: Karen Human Rights Group' Page 10: USCR/E. Bedford' Page 12: AP Page 13: UNHCR/S. Boness and UNHCR Page 20: bpk


4/13

The refugee problem is fundamentally ene 0f scale.Providing asylum to small, manageable numbers ofrefugees causes few problems for neighboring coun-tries, and states insuch circumstances usually respond gen-erously. When the numbers crossing their borders beginmultiplying, however, governments' generostty usuallyflagsarid barriers begin to appear. By the same token! it's noproblem for resettlement countries to admit small groupsof carefully selected refugees [ TOm distant nations. Unfor-tunately, resettling-small numbers-a generous ad of enor-rnous benefit to a few fortunate souls-also doesn't solvemany problems. Yetresettlement.has great potential, whenused in conjunction with other measures, for solving seem-ingly intractable refugee situations. And the United Statesis one of the few countries-perhaps the o'nly one-withthe willingness, resources, and capacity to admit enoughrefugees even to be able to consider using resettlement be-yond individual rescue and as away to resolve larger-scalerefugee dilemmas.u.s. willingness came Imo question, however, fol-lowing the September 11, 2001 tragedy. The government'two-month suspension of refugee resett lement to conducta security review; and the program's slow resumption sinceformally restarting in November 2001, caused a Significantanticipated shortfall in the number of refugees to be ad-mitted in the UOiled States in 2002. Consequently, theensuing debate about how to restart refugee resettlementoften sounded numbers-driven, How could the UnitedStates meet the authorized goal of 70,0.00 refugee admis-sions set by President Bush for 2002? After mouths of nearlyno refugee admissions, did this remain a. reasonable andresponsible goal! Could large numbers be resettled over arelat ively short time without compromising the very secu-2 8

b y B i l l F r e l i c ktity concerns, the suspension was intended to addressWouJd-or should-the U.S, resettlement program insteabecome a limited 'rescue operation for a few carefullylected and screened 'refugees!

The formal reason for the suspension of thesettlement program was to reassess its security componentsbut at various levels, all aspects of the program were undreview. As the government rethought its commitmentresettling refugees, all the actors involved in resettlemenbegan to examine anew the underlying suppositions, puposes, and potential of the program. This essay is antempt to reflect on the value ofresertlernent and to suggehow itmight mast effectively.aud efficiently'serve both avehicle for individual rescue and asa mechanism for comprehensive solutions,

Any assessment of resettlement must stan with tobvious postulate that it is an option for only a small fralion of the world's refugees. The U . s . government shoulregard resettlement, therefore, as an instrumentte be useas part of comprehensive solutions and in conjunction wiits overseas assistance programs, not only to provide safeand restore hope to the immediate beneficiaries of U.generosity, but also to accomplish the broader goal of ehancing pro ection for millions of additional refugees fwhom admission to the United States is nota possibilityBecause resettlement is a limited tool, it mustsmart. Ideally, it should be used to create additional leveage with other countries-esc 111atcountries of first asylumwill keep their doors open and provide at least temporaryprotection in the immediate vicinity of conflict, and so thother, mere distant, countries will be encouraged to shathe responsibility for TesolviJJg the plight of refugees.the u.s. program can accomplish these-goals, meeting a


5/13

11

R e t h i n k i n ! u . s . R e f u ! e e A d m i s s i o n s

nual numerical refugee admissions targets will provide aproper and humane way for the United States to advancerefugee protection worldwide.

The State Department n eed s to reexamine, and re-tool, the system for setting the priorities thai determinewhich few among the world's many r efu ge es a re of mos thumanitarian cencern'to this country andmostio need ofresettlement. At this writing, the U.S. government relies ona basic structure introduced in 1994. It established fivepriorities: Priority One (P-1), which w a : ; originally intendedfor especially urgent cases, but is now an unwieldy desig-nation that includes a wide variety of categories and defi-nitions; Priority Two (P-2) for particular, identifiable na-tionality (and sub-nationality) groups; Priority Three (P-3) for refugees separated from immediate family memberswho legally reside in the United States; Priority Four (P-4)for more distant relatives; and Priority Five (P-S) for evenmore distant relatives.

In practice, P-l cases usually require a referral fromthe UN High Commissioner for Refugees, while P-2 casescan be processed without a UNHCR referral, usuallythrough a cooperative arrangement involving U.S. nongov-ernmental organizations (NGOs).

Family reunification cases (P-3, P-4, or P-S) are

based on a petition-called an affidavit of relationship-from a refugee's U.S.-based farni ly.mernber. Because of thelimited number ofP-2j:ategorygroups, the restriction ofP-3 to six nationalities, and the fact that theU.S. governmentno longer employs P-4 or P-S, UNHCR has been under greatpressure to produce more P-l referrals, while lacking thefinancial and human resources to meet the demand of theU.S. admissions ceiling. For the United States to meet anannual goal of 70,000 refugee admissions-or twice thatnumber or half that number-s-it needs to supplement withbroader-based approaches, often at its own initiative, therelatively few carefully selected cases that UNHCR has thecapacity to identify and refer to the United States for con-sideration.

All persons admitted under the U.S. refugee ad-missions program must meet the refugee definition in U.S.law. The processing priorities are intended, therefore, toestablish an order of preference based on U.S. levels ofhumanitarian con cern among refugees, all of whom havea well-founded fear. of persecution iu.their countries oforigin. Functional1y, the priority categories set the orderfor status-determination interviews by U.S. Immigrationand Naturalization Service (INS) officers. As currentlywritten and used, however, the processing priorities and

A Soma li f am i ly s ee ki ng u . s . refugee r eset tl emer rt awa it sc th 'e ir l~tervi'eWwith t he_ Join t Volun~J :y~genGYinNa ir ob i, K enya , w .h ic h p re pa re s c a s e ; s f or : iu b se que rJ tlmmig ra ti on a .nd Na tu ra liz at Ion S er vi ce , 'i nt er vi ev Js "December 2001., f !h ( :j td ~ ' l !J S C R f S ; ' F r e / k k2 9


6/13

, I

!!,

u . s . C O M M I m E f o r R E F U G E E Stheir implementation are neither fair nor useful. Theyshould be changed, as follows:

setting priorities among vulnerable groups of refugees.Consequently, many of the.groups included in Po l are ac-tually underserved because they are lost in the crowd. illcurrently written, the urgency of P-l cases is diluted be-cause the category includes cases that don't involve Imme-diate protection needs, such as disabled persons and long-stayers who require durable solutions, Of course, mem-bers of any of the groups removed from Pol would still beeligible for P-l consideration ifthey fi t any of the four cri-teria listed above.

1) Umit Priority One (P-l) to the most urgent protec-tion cases in countries of first asylum. P-] should belimited to include a) refugees facing compelling securityconcerns in countrie ...of first asylurn, b) refugees in need oflegal protection because of danger of refoullnnent, c) refu-gees in danger of'armedattack in their immediate location,ana d) refugees in urgent need of medical attention notavailable in the first asylum country.

Much of the language in the current Pl designa-tion should be deleted. P-I bas become a bloated catch-allthat does not serve the difficult but necessary purpose of

2) Establisb partnersbips involving U.S. embassies andNGOs that serve refugee populations to Identlfy Prr-ority One (P-I) cases in :need of resettlement. One

factor that appears to slow refugee admissions andlimit their number is LlNHCR's so-called"gatekeeper" role. In practice, most Pl cases re-quire. a specific UNHCR referral. UNHCR, how-ever, often lacks the reso urces 10 devote to resettle-ment, and agency staff in 'field offices sometimesfeel that their own priorities become distorted bydemands from resettlement countries. Anotheravenue exists, however, for identifying P-I refu-gees, bur it is underutilized: u.s. embassy-identi-fied cases. The State Deparunent's Bureau ofPopu-lation, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) should pro-vide u.S. diplomatic posts abroad with clear guide-lines to encourage their cooperation with NGOs,who are often closest to the ground and bestsituated to identify compelling cases in need ofresettlement.

The U.S. government should also ad-dress the problem by providing more resourcesto UNHCR, by, for example, funding more pro-tection officers to conduct refugee status determi-nation interviews and complete the extensive pa-perwork associated with resettlement. Withoutadequate staff, UNHCR cannot be expected to ful-fill the need for P-I referrals. Quite simply, thatrequires donors-particularly resettlement coun-tries-to provide additional funding for UNHCR.

Burme se re fu ge e girl in Thail aJ ia . Abe lli'" l.2~,Oe'O refugee~Ifrom Burma , n av e liv ed in camps in Thei land fbr nearly 12! years. ~esetHement migot be an.cptionfor promoting (am-I prehensive solutions. P h o t o : U S e R / H . R u i z3 0

3) Expand the number of refugee groups ofspecial concern (0 the United States undercurrent Priority Two (.P-2), but redesignate thecurrent P-2 as a new Priority 5 (P-S). By iden-tifying refugees who share common characteris-tics supporting their persecution claims, P-2 is auseful expedient to processing ilia relieves theburden on UNHCR for making individual refu-gee status determinations and referrals, and expe-dites admission of groups of similarly situatedrefugees. Each member of a designated P-2groupwould still need to establish threshold eligibilityby proving that he or she is a refugee under U .S.


7/13

R e t h in k in ! U . S . R e f u ! e e A d m i s s i o n s

" The United States isone of the few coun-tries-perhaps the onlyone-with the willing-ness, resources, andcapacity to admit

enough refugees evento be able to considerusing resettlementbeyond indlvideal

fescue and as (J wqy to

law. However; seekingeut.groups witb common character-istics is often a n expeditious way to establish the refugeeidentity of similarly situated persecuted persons. The rec-ommendation to re-designate current P-2 to a new P-5 is toaccommodate a higher priority category for other groups,described below.

Atthis writing, PRMonly recognizes and processesfour P-2 groups-certain categories of Cubans, Vietnam-ese, former Soviets, and Iranians-all four of which havebeen on the list of nationality categories of special concernfor well over a decade, and only oneof which-Iranians-was chosen atPRM's initiative (the other three weremandated by Congress or interna-tional agreements). Iranian religiousminorities are the only group currentlydesignated for P-2 that does not haveCold War origins (although it is anequally old designated P-2 group). Ina sense, none of the current P-2groupsmeets the technical international refu-gee definition of being outside theirhome country. Eligible Cubans, Viet-namese, and former Soviets are iden-tified and processed for resettlementwhile living in their country of origin,and depart directly for the UnitedStates. Since PRM discontinued P-2for Iranian applicants in Germany(and P-2 processing inAustria is avail-able only to Iranian religious minor-ity members who enter the countrythrough a special Austrian "0" visa),the refugee bureau has effectivelyturned Iranian P-2 into an in-countryprocessing program aswell.

Ameaningless "placeholder"P-2 category exists for Africa. PRM'sAfrica P-2 designation says that theState Department will identify groups in consultation withNGOs, UNHCR, and other experts based on their individualcircumstances. Since the same consultation process andcriteria ought to be in place for P-2 groups outside Af-rica as well and since the current P-2 designation for Af-rica doesn't, in fact, identify any particular African groupsfor processing, it should be deleted. Instead, as the StateDepartment identifies actual refugee groups in Africa forP-2 processing, they should be added to the list. Thefirst group ought to be Somali Bantu currently in theDadaab camp in Kenya, for whom PRM said at the end of2001 "a P-2 designation is being developed."

Other groups that should be considered for P-2processing might include Sudanese "Lost Girls" in theKakuma Camp in Kenya, similar to the better known "LostBoys"Who were previously resettled to the United States;

internally displaced Chechens and ethnic Armenians dis-placed from Azerbaijan living in Moscow; Iranian "irregu-la r mover" refugees in Ankara, Turkeywho arrived via north-ern Iraq; Afghan and Iraqi refugees interdicted byAustraliaand diverted to Nauru and Papua New Guinea; Vietnam-ese Montagnards in Cambodia; ethnic Kunama refugees inthe Tigray region of Ethiopia caught in the conflict betweenEthiopia and Eritrea; and Roma and other "gypsy" sub-groups displaced from Kosovo and unwelcome in all thesurrounding areas, including Macedonia, Bosnia, Serbia,

and Montenegro.4) Create a new Priority Two (P-2)category for refugees whose perse-cution or fear of persecution isbased on actual or imputed associa-tion with the U.S. government orU.S. nongovernmental entities.During the 1980s, the U.S. refugee re-settlement program demonstrated aparticular concern for refugees perse-cuted for their association with theUnited States. In fact, the original P-2category was exclusively for former"U.S. government employees" and P-4was for persons with "other ties to theUnited States," including "refugees em-ployed by U.S. foundations, U.S. vol-untary agencies, or U.S. business firmsfor at least one year prior to the claimfor refugee status" and refugees"trained or educated in the UnitedStates or abroad under U.S. govern-ment auspices." As the United Statesembarks on an open-ended and multi-faceted War on Terrorism, persecutionbased on association with the UnitedStates becomes much more likely, andthe U.S. government should assume

particular responsibility for protecting those who are atrisk because of their links with this country.5) Make immediate family reunification available forall separated refugee families with a U.S. relative, re-gardless of nationality, by opening current PriorityThree (P-3) to all nationalities, but redesignate it asPriority Six (P-6). Currently, only members of six na-tionality groups-Angolans, Burundians, Congolese(Brazzaville), Congolese (Kinshasa), Sierra Leoneans, andSudanese-are eligible to petition for their immediate refu-gee relatives to join them. The process by which PRMchooses these six nationalities, and excludes all the rest,seems arbitrary and unfair. Family reunification is a bed-rock principle. It ought to apply universally to separatedrefugees, regardless of nationality, under a new Priority Six.

3 1


8/13

I\

u . s . C O M M I m E f o r R E F U G E E S

DESCRIPTION OFu.s. REFUGEEPROCESSING PRIORITIES-FY 2002PRi,OIU'iY-:ONE.l\~~b.el 's ofariy n,atlonalitygroup may be proce~~~d [OJ admission (0t1~eUnited StatesunderPricriry Q_nc (E -J )if'refern~d by the UN High. Gommfss ione r for Refugees , (UN-HeR) 'O l " i under specific Iimiteddrcumstanees,U.S, e!11b~s;;ies.PriQr 'Cbnsulta'ti!)D with 'the Department of State, and nnmigr


9/13

R e t h i n k i n J u . s . R e f u J e e A d m i s s i o n s

THE AUTHOR'S PROPOSEDCHANGES IN U.S. REFUGEEPROCESSING PRIORITIES*

PRIORITY ONEThe most urgent refugee protection cases in countries of fiTst~sylum.Th$~ include: a) ref~lgeeslfadng:>r(jN1p'el-ling security concerns in countries of first asylum, b) ~remge.~ n need of legal.pr0tc;tionbeqlu,se o " f t dangtr of'refoulement, c) refugees in danger of armed attack in their imineqiatdocati6ri, ana p) refug~es:im urgentAeed ! S fmedical attention not available in the flrst-asylumeeuntry, NiemD:ers of any:nationaiity group would be.peo-cessed for admission to the United States under Priority Qlle (P -l) if referred pyUNHGR, U.,S. drplomaticpostsabroad, and NGOs serving refugee populations and wbrl


10/13

u .s . C O M M r m E f o r R E F U G E E S

G ) Create a new PrioTity Three (P.3) category for refu-gee women-at-risk. Women-at-risk are currently includedin the overcrowded pol, where-they tend to be overlooked,Obvious) y , the suggested narrowing of P-I is not intendedto exdudewomen whoestablisheligibilltyfor Pe! process-ing if they have an urgent and compelling need to be re-settled. In removing them from Pvl , however, the.y shouldnot be relegated to a lower priority than the current ]>-2(groups of special concern) or-P-3 (immediate family) pri-.orities, A separate priority category for refugee women-at-risk would be defined to rndude refugee women-headedhouseholds (including families in whichan adult male is unable to assume theIde of the head of the famity or supportthe family), Such women are at particu-lar risk in places of first asylum wherewomen's protection is dependent onmale relatives. Widowed women are par-ticularly vulnerable, both in terms oftheir physical safety and because of theadded hardship of having to supportchildren and elderly relatives withoutthe material assistance: of a male.part-ocr. Such women are susceptible to ex-ploitation and abuse, and often havedifficulty providing' for their familieswithontputting thernselves at additionalrisk.

still need to prove that they meet the U,S, statutory refugeedefinition based on fear of persecution in their countriesof origin.7) Create a new Priority Four (P.4) for physically or men-tally disabled refugees and refugee survivors of tortureor violence, This group, also mentienedunder the currentcatch-all pol, should be designated as a separate prioritycategory, especially since the assessment of disability fallsoutside the unique competence of UNHCR" which ischarged with making P-l referrals. U.Sv.embassles and

diplcmatic posts could find addi-tional partners better trained to iden-tify and refer refugees in need of re-settlement based on special needsarising fWID torture trauma or physi -cal and mental disablli ties, These part-ners might include NGOs, which of-ten work with UNHCR to providecommunity services for refugee popu-lations with special needs, Findingother partners for embassy-identifiedcases would not preclude UNHCR re-ferrals of P-4 cases.

Aswith women-at-risk, physi-cally and mentally disabled refugeesand refugee survivors of torture or vio-lence are currently included in P-l.l1hey should not, therefore, be placed in a lower prioritythan the current P-2 (groups of special concern) or P-3 (im-

mediate family) priorities.Disabled and traumatized refugees usually stiffer

disproportionately.in refugee-camps because such facilitiesare rarely able toaccommodate special needs, TIle conse-quences are often severe hardship, utter dependency anddiscriminatorytreatment, Such refugees includeSierra Leo-nean amputees, victims of tlre Revolutionary United Front(RUF) campaigu ofterror that included chopping off civil-Ians' hands, arms, fingers.and noses, When a wave of anti-refugee violenceerupted in Guinea, refugee amputees wereeasilyidentifiable, An-internal UNHCR report noted, "Inthe context. of hostility towards refugees based on the per-ception that they are rebel collaborators, amputees in par-ticular have been the victims of increased harassment andeven arbitrary arrest"

.For such refugees, the only chance fora life ofhu-man dignity is resettlement to a country that is-able to pre-vide the basic infrastructureto enable a normal existen ce,As in the case of women-at-risk, creating a specific admis-sions category for disabled refugees might help INS offic-ers to'recallbrate their assessment of val nerability to ac-cord more weight to threats to refugees in countries offirst asylum, Such threats are often the more relevantfactor in assessing the need fOT resettlement thaI) thestrength of the underlying refugee claim in the country

" The us. refugeeprogram has a

The U.S, refugee program has a built-in biasagainst identifying refugee women-at-risk. Under law,INS officers .are req uired to conduct refugee status deter-mination interviews (based all the standard of a well-founded fear of persecutionin the country-of origin] 10ensure that applicants qualify for refugee admission, butare. Dot directed by law to accord any, particular weightto coriditious in countries of asylum, In many places"but particularly in Africa (where refugee status is estab-lished underthe broader Organization of African UnityConvention definition), refugee women often.have dif-ficulty establishingindividual refugee claims based on anarrowly interpreted persecution standard. Frequently!theyare part of larger groups fleeing general ized violencein their ountry of origln. Often they are .at.risk, how-ever, because of their high level of vulnerability in thecountry of flrst asylum, But TNS officers' attention is di-verted away from examining threats in the asylum coun-tly; both U.S. law and (heir training direct them to con-centrale on fnding specific grounds for the underlying refu-gee claim in political, religious, or ethnic persecution ofthe individual refugee weman in the country of origin. Cre-ating aspecific P-3 for women-at-risk would help IN of-fleers to appreciate better the compelling: need for resettle-ment in such cases by focusing .greater attention on-andaccording greater weight to-danger to refugee women incountries of first asylum, even though such women would

3 4


11/13

R e t h i n k i n ! u . s . R e f u ! e e A d m i s s i o n s

of origin per se. As in the case of women-at-risk, dis-abled refugees would still need to establish threshold eli-gibility as refugees under U.S. law.8) Eliminate,current Priority Four (P-4) and Priority Five(P-B) for more distant relatives (if current P-3 is madeavailable to refugees regardless of nationality). In orderto limit the universe of applicants, widening the scope 9ffamily relations logically dictates limiting the pool to par-ticular nationalities. By adoptin,gnKommendation #S, pri-ority would, appropriately be accorded based on the close-ness of the tel auonship and no, other factor. Because noactual refugee groups are currently included in.'P-4 or P-5anyway;alld because PRM officials havegiven no indica-tion that tbey plan to use these priorities again, main-taining them 'as empty processing priorities sends falsesignals and clutters an already dysfunctlonal priority-set-tjng system.9) Create a new Priori t)' Seven (P-7) fat long-stayer refu-gees. Millions of refugees worldwidehave been: relegatedto 1 1 limbo existence, warehoused il l camps or settlementswith no prospects for voluntary repatriation or local inte-gration. Children born and raised within the confines ofcamps often never see normal life outside the fences. These

populations often.become dependent and despondent, withpredictably n eg a ti ve s oc ia l consequences.

The last clause of P-1, which refers to persons inneed of durabte solutions, should be deleted, .so that P-]: isreservsd for truIy urgen t cases. P-7 should take as Jts start"ing point the language at the end of tire current Pol desig-nation: p ers on s fo r w h om o th er d 'l{ ;- ab leso lu tio ns a re n ot f e ( l -s ib le -a n d who se s uu us in the plt lce oJ asylum do es not p res en t asQLl!;factor), long-term 50 lu t iM!. .

The U.S ..government could start . : P - 7 processingwhen it anticipates a refugee admissions shortfall in the.bigherprioritiea Instead of letting federallyfunded resettle-ment slots go unused, these places would be. allotted tolong-stayers with no other durable solutions. The follow-ingcrireria should be used to determine P-7 groups of spe-rial humanitarian concern to the United States:

Long-stayers, as defined above, who:a) do not have fully guaranteed 'legal status , 01'stable. physical seCl:ltity in the plaee of asylum;b) do not have full freedom ofmovement; andc) are denied officially the right to work, or pre-vented unofficially from meaningful employment,em account of being refugees:Long-stayer refugees often fit a COmmon profile,

sharing the same. ethnic/politiCal background and having

,A non?overnment~lorganizati!!in case worker in Nairobi, K.~l)ya~~ep.~resbie.grap,nicarinf.armationfor" aSomali refugee seeking us, resettlement. December 2001. P h o to : , 1 :d 8 C R tB . F re fic k3 S


12/13

u . s . C O M M I m E f o r R E F U G E E Sfled the same persecution at the same 'time: Chooslngfairlyamong the long-stayers is difficult. Priority could beac-corded based on ties to the United States, including themore distant family ties currently included in.p-4 and P-S,However; where finding U.S. ties or other distinguishingvulnerabilit ies becomes problematic, a transparent mecha-nism of random selection, such as a lottery, could be uti-lized as the fairest method for making such choices for largetamp populations whose members share a common pro-file. Such lotteries would go into effect only after all higherprocessing priorities had be-en exhausted. There is a cur-rent precedent for such lotteries in the Cuban admissionsprogram. An y o ff er from the United States to belprelieve along-term refugee population through resettlement needsto be approached carefully, It should be accompanied by atransparentpublic-inforrnarion campaign in which refugeesare informed about the eligibility criteria (inCluding cut-off dates), the selection process, and the purpose of the re-settlement, aswell as other options, where appropriate, sud)

as assisted voluntary repatriation, local integration, osettlement to other countries. If done improperly, suchtiatives risk backfiring, by creating unrealistic expectatamong large refugee populations, causing anger and rement among refugees not chosen for resettlement, andcipitating new movement into camps by persons seeresettlement opportunities for which they are not elig

In identifying potential P-7 populations, theDepartment should choose refugee situations where aresettlement initiative might help to improve internatioresponsibility sharing and bring closure to the situatiof specific long-stayer populations with no other dursolutions in sight. The U.S. government should use.resement in such contexts to encourage comprehensivetions. This includes expanding the involvement of oresettlement countries in providing durable solutions,also includes using resettlement-in conjunction withseas assistance funding-to persuade countries of firstlum to provide local integration for residual caseloadscountries of origin to accept the voluntary repatriation

those willing to retuThis reco

mendation is madethe context of a myear history of signifishortfalls in thegovernment's targeannual refugee admsions, and, of coursethe particular predment of 2002. It wocertainly be preferathat all 70,000 place2002 be filled by cascompelling vulnerabity, but in reality,will not happen. Idefying and processinghigher priorities is laintensive, often entaimultiple interviewsmuch paperwork Eif the individual cwithin a long-staycaseload are not as cpelling, using admsions numbers tovide durable solutiofor large refugee poputions can be vital tosolving refugee sittions in their entirety

Tragically, thare many-farmany-examples of

i Iraqi refugee children in Saudi A rab ia. Som e. 5,000 Iraqi refugees-unab le to return, 'h ome ' s af ~ ly a ri d n,cit p erm i~ ed to in t~ 8ra te lo :c a'U y- ha ve b ee n liv in ~ fo r m o re th an te nh 'e ar . in " de :sQ .I ~ te a~~ p r! ~oA - li k e c ond it id n s i.~h e- R ,_ af ~_ ~e fQg ,ee' ,c pmp i n no rt h~ r nSaut!l l A ra b_ )a , O n e~ fo urtli,Q fth e c am p p op ula tio n a re c hild re n u nd er the age of runew~0ha\ lekn.9V11n n oih ih gb u t I H e in t he c amp . F or th .e ,s e: != h, ld re n,Raffia' is a dead end.I Photo: E D l!J m e s .n il ., , '


13/13

bill frelick - rethinking us refugee admissions

Documents