Latest news with #BoardofImmigrationAppeals
Los Angeles Times
7 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Under Trump, U.S. returns to treating violence against women as a ‘private matter'
The U.S. has been waffling for decades over whether women have a right to refugee protection when fleeing gender-based violence. Under different administrations, the Department of Justice has established and reversed precedents, issued and repealed rulings. But the latest flip-flop by the Trump administration is not just another toggle between rules. In July, the Trump administration's high court of immigration, the Board of Immigration Appeals, issued a deeply troubling decision. The ruling held that a 'particular social group' — one of the five grounds for refugee protection — cannot be defined by gender, or by gender combined with nationality. The ruling, in a case known as Matter of K-E-S-G-, is binding on all adjudicators across the country. The legal reasoning is both unpersuasive and alarming. It seeks to return refugee law to an era when violence against women was dismissed as a private matter, not of concern to governments or human rights institutions. It is part of a broader, ongoing assault by the Trump administration on women's rights and immigrant rights — in this case, attempting to turn back history to 1992. It was in 1993, at the Vienna Conference on Human Rights, when the catchphrase 'women's rights are human rights' gained global prominence. This was a response to the long-standing focus on the violation of civil and political rights by governments, while much of the violence against women was committed by nonstate actors. Women and girls fleeing gender-based violence were considered outside the bounds of protection. But the Vienna Conference marked a turning point, leading to transformative change in how governments and international bodies addressed gender-based violence — because much of the violence in this world is targeted at women. Laws and policies were adopted worldwide to advance women's rights, including for those seeking refugee protection. Under international and U.S. law, a refugee is someone with a well-founded fear of persecution linked to that person's 'race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,' which are commonly referred to as the protected grounds. Gender is not explicitly listed, and as a result, women fleeing gender-based forms of persecution, such as honor killings, female genital cutting, sexual slavery or domestic violence, were often denied protection, with their risk wrongly categorized as 'personal' or 'private,' and not connected to one of the protected grounds. To address the misconception that women are outside the ambit of refugee protection, beginning in 1985 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees issued a series of guidance documents explaining that although 'gender' is not listed as a protected ground, women could often be considered a 'particular social group' within a country. The commissioner called on countries that were parties to the international refugee treaty — the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol — to issue guidance for their adjudicators to recognize the ways in which gender-based claims could meet the refugee definition. The United States was among the first to respond to the call. In 1995, the Department of Justice issued a document instructing asylum officers to consider the evolving understanding of women's rights as human rights. The following year, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a watershed decision, granting asylum to a young woman fleeing genital cutting. The court recognized that claims of gender-based violence could qualify under the 'particular social group' category. Yet the path forward was anything but smooth. In 1999, the same court denied asylum to a Guatemalan woman who endured a decade of brutal beatings and death threats from her husband, while the state refused to intervene. Atty. Gen. Janet Reno found the decision to be so out of step with U.S. policy that she used her authority to vacate it. And so women remained eligible to be considered a 'particular social group' when seeking refuge in the U.S. The view was affirmed by a 2014 case recognizing that women fleeing domestic violence could indeed qualify for asylum. But that progress was short-lived. In 2018, Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions took jurisdiction over the case of Anabel, a Salvadoran survivor of domestic violence to whom the top U.S. immigration court had granted asylum. Sessions ruled that domestic violence is an act of personal or private violence, rather than persecution on account of a protected ground. This characterization of the violence as personal or private was in direct repudiation of the principle that women's rights are human rights, deserving of human rights remedies, such as asylum. The Biden administration sought to undo the damage. In 2021, Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland vacated that ruling and reinstated the 2014 precedent, restoring a measure of protection for gender claims. Now comes the recent ruling from the immigration court under the Trump administration. Going beyond Sessions' determination that gender violence is personal, the court is striking at the heart of the legal framework itself by barring gender or gender-plus-nationality as a valid way to define a social group. This erects an even higher barrier for women and girls fleeing persecution. It is a transparent attempt to roll back decades of legal progress and return us to a time when women's suffering was invisible in refugee law. The implications are profound. This ruling will make it far more difficult for women and girls to win asylum, even though their claims often involve some of the most egregious human rights violations. But it does not foreclose all claims — each must still be decided on its own facts — and there is no doubt the precedent will be challenged in federal courts across the country. Another reversal is now sorely needed, to get the struggle for gender equality moving in the right direction again. Our refugee laws should protect women, because women should not be subject to gender-based violence. That is, in fact, one of our human rights. Karen Musalo is a law professor and the founding director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Law, San Francisco. She is also lead co-author of 'Refugee Law and Policy: A Comparative and International Approach.'
Middle East Eye
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
CAIR-NJ applauds federal appeals court decision to stop deportation of Palestinian man
CAIR-New Jersey on Thursday applauded a federal appeals court after it stopped the deportation of an imam who was born in Palestine and has been in the US for nearly 30 years. Mohammed Qatanani is an imam in New Jersey who has been fighting a legal battle for exercising his First Amendment rights. In a statement, the civil rights organisation said: "This victory secures Imam Mohammed Qatanani's stability for himself, his family, and the communities he has served for decades. It also reinforces a fundamental principle: federal agencies must operate within the boundaries our laws establish. 'No one agency should have the right to upend people's lives. This ruling sends a powerful message that our legal system will protect religious leaders and immigrant families from overreach.' In a 2-1 ruling on Tuesday, the US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Board of Immigration Appeals had "exceeded its authority when it attempted to undo Qatanani's adjustment to Legal Permanent Resident status".
Miami Herald
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Immigrant couples face new hurdles as USCIS tightens rules after Trump orders
In response to two executive orders signed by President Donald Trump on Jan. 20, his first day in office, the United States has imposed new requirements for another key immigration benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy alert on Tuesday regarding this decision, which affects certain foreign nationals and their applications with the federal agency. According to USCIS, this is an 'update' to its Policy Manual, and the new measures took effect on March 3, 2025. They apply to 'requests pending or filed on or after that date.' USCIS changes rules on refugee and asylee marriages USCIS announced that it has updated its guidance in Volume 4 of the Policy Manual regarding valid marriages between a principal asylee or refugee and their claimed spouse. 'We are updating guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 4, on valid marriages between a principal asylee or principal refugee and their claimed spouse,' the agency stated. 'Under the updated guidance, all marriages between principal asylees or principal refugees and their claimed derivative spouses must be legally valid under the law of the jurisdiction where the marriage was celebrated in order to be considered valid for immigration benefit purposes.' Only marriages that meet these conditions will be recognized for immigration benefits such as a spousal petition. Applicants must still submit a separate Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition (Form I-730) for each eligible family member. In the case of spouses, USCIS officers are required to gather testimony and evaluate other relevant evidence to determine whether the relationship meets the criteria. 'The primary evidence for the petitioner's spouse is usually a marriage certificate issued by a civil authority in the country where the marriage occurred and, if applicable, proof of legal termination of previous marriages such as a divorce decree or death certificate,' USCIS stated. Read more: Major USCIS change after Trump's order: Key immigration form no longer accepted Trump's orders prompt USCIS policy changes USCIS confirmed that this policy change aligns with two immigration-related executive orders signed by Trump. 'This updated guidance is consistent with applicable Board of Immigration Appeals case law and other USCIS adjudications,' the agency said. 'It also aligns our policies with President Trump's Executive Order 14148, Initial Recissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions, and Executive Order 14163, Realigning the United States Refugee Admission Program.' Executive Order 14148 criticizes the previous Biden administration for having 'embedded deeply unpopular, inflationary, unlawful, and radical practices across all agencies and offices of the Federal Government.' It also revokes several Biden-era policies related to gender equality and LGBTQ+ protections. While USCIS did not specify whether the updated guidance on refugee and asylee marriages is directly linked to the rollback of those specific policies, the agency emphasized that the new guidance is controlling and 'supersedes any related prior guidance.' Executive Order 14163 highlights the 'burden' placed on federal institutions due to mass immigration under Biden's administration and calls for a 'realignment' of the refugee admissions system.
San Francisco Chronicle
12-06-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Woman accused of being a witch in Brazil can seek asylum in U.S., court rules
A woman who fled Brazil to California with her husband and child after attacks on her minority religion, including an incident in which she said a man held a gun to her head, has a right to seek asylum in the United States, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday. U.S. immigration courts had ruled that the threats Silvana De Souza Silva encountered in Brazil amounted to no more than 'discrimination' against her Afro-Brazilian faith, Candomblé, and not to persecution, the legal requirement for political asylum and protection from deportation. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said she had presented evidence that she and her family could face death if they are sent back to Brazil. There is 'ample' evidence 'that the harms and abuses De Souza Silva faced, including harassment, recurring and escalating vandalism, and an armed death threat during a home invasion, caused her to practice Candomblé underground and eventually flee,' the court said in a 3-0 ruling. The evidence also shows that attacks against adherents to the minority faith were common in Brazil, the court said. The court ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider the case, including evidence of attacks on Candomblé practitioners that the immigration judges had disregarded. The ruling was written by Judge Richard Paez, appointed by President Bill Clinton, and joined by Judges Kim Wardlaw, another Clinton appointee, and Carlos Bea, appointed by President George W. Bush. The court's action 'gives hope to all immigrants who have to face hardships, (particularly) in regards to their religion,' said the woman's lawyer, Jose Vergara. The woman declined comment to the Chronicle but said through De Souza Silva that she was happy with the ruling, 'but I still understand that there is a long way to go' before winning asylum. De Souza Silva, 39, lives in Tracy (San Joaquin County) with her husband and their 9-year-old child. Two older children remain in Brazil with De Souza Silva's mother. De Souza Silva began practicing Candomblé as a young teenager, in secrecy from her parents, who were devout Catholics, the court said. According to NPR, the religion originated in West Africa and was brought to Brazil by slaves. Followers of the religion believe in one all-powerful god who is served by lesser deities. The concept of good or evil does not exist, only individual destiny, NPR said. De Souza Silva moved away from home after meeting her future husband and a woman named Simone, both of whom also practiced Candomblé. Then in 2010 several people broke into Simone's home, murdered her father and called everyone there 'witches' and 'sorcerers' who were not welcome in the neighborhood, the court said. De Souza Silva, who lived nearby, soon started seeing graffiti on the walls of her home, saying things like 'this is not the place for you.' She and her husband had difficulty finding work, and their children were harassed at school, the court said. In September 2021, the court said, her husband got a call offering him a job that turned out to be a ruse to get him out of the home. A masked man then broke in, held a gun to her head, and told her, 'Witch, leave this town with your black magic family. This is just a warning. … Next time you won't live to see another day.' After reaching California with her husband and child, De Souza Silva applied for asylum but was rejected by an immigration judge. According to the appeals court, the judge said she had not suffered any lasting physical harm from the death threat, and her claim that her religion had cost her employment opportunities was just 'speculation.' The judge also said she and her family hadn't shown that they would be unable to relocate safely elsewhere in Brazil. The ruling was endorsed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. But the federal appeals court, which hears challenges to rulings by immigration judges, said the judges in De Souza Silva's case had ignored evidence of religious persecution in South America's largest nation. 'As evangelicalism grows in Brazil, its most extreme adherents — often affiliated with gangs — are increasingly targeting Brazil's non-Christian religious minorities,' Paez said in Wednesday's ruling. He said reports of religious-based violence against Afro-Brazilian practitioners increased nearly tenfold between 2016 and 2019. In 2019, Paez said, more than 200 Candomblé temples shut down after receiving threats, twice as many as in 2018. And because the evidence could show that De Souza and her family would face a likelihood of persecution if deported, Paez said, it would be up to the U.S. government to prove that they would be safe elsewhere in Brazil.
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
‘I've missed her so much': Alpharetta woman detained by ICE for weeks released on bond
An Alpharetta woman who immigration agents arrested and detained for more than three weeks is free and back with her husband. A judge in El Paso, Texas, granted Daniela Joly Landin a $10,000 bond Wednesday, allowing her to return with her husband to Georgia. 'It was a very special and emotional moment,' her husband, Richard Landin, said, speaking with Channel 2's Bryan Mims from a hotel room in El Paso. His mother recorded video of the two walking out of the facility. Smiling and teary-eyed, they embraced one another. Daniela and Richard met online and were married on Feb. 8 in Alpharetta. Daniela is 24 years old and from Colombia. She entered the United States in May 2024, presented herself to the U.S. Border Patrol, and applied for asylum. Her husband said violent paramilitary groups in Colombia put her life in danger. 'They kill people for really just about any justification they can come up with,' Richard said. But a judge denied her asylum application, so she appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which has not yet heard her case. Her husband said on May 12, three Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents knocked on their apartment door, saying Daniela had an order for deportation because her asylum was denied. She spent about two weeks at the Stewart Detention Center in Columbus but was transferred to the El Paso Service Processing Center in Texas. TRENDING STORIES: Man tries to carjack 2 victims, police say. Then a good Samaritan jumped in to help GA ringleader of fraud scheme sentenced for creating fake recruiting websites to steal identities Police investigate double shooting that left men injured in Greenbrian Mall parking lot Her immigration attorney, Jameel Manji, of Decatur, told Mims last week that immigrants with pending appeals have typically not been detained. But he said under the Trump administration, ICE agents have been more aggressive, pursuing undocumented immigrants who have been in the country less than two years, whether they've broken any laws or not. 'Two years is kind of an arbitrary marker that this administration is using, but basically when someone's been here less than two years, they consider them prime candidates for expedited removals,' Manji said. Richard, who talked with Daniela on the phone daily, said the El Paso facility was overcrowded, making living conditions difficult. 'It was so packed that there weren't any beds left for new arrivals,' he said. 'So, there was a fair amount of them sleeping on the floor.' Dustin Baxter, the attorney who worked to provide Daniela a bond hearing, said the judge granted bond because, 'she's always complied with everything immigration has asked her to do.' She has attended all of her court appearances and filed all paperwork on time, he said. In immigration court, defendants have to pay bonds in full and in cash. Richard said he used his savings, donations from family, and a GoFundMe campaign to raise money. Speaking in Spanish, Daniela said she's grateful for everyone who helped in her case, calling this an answered prayer. Mims sent emails to the Department of Homeland Security seeking a statement about this case, but has not yet received a response. As for Daniela's appeal of her asylum denial, her attorneys said that it could take months, or even years, depending on the backlog of cases facing the Board of Immigration Appeals. 'Asylum is very difficult to obtain,' he said. 'The bar is extremely high, barring that she was specifically targeted for persecution.' Her husband is also petitioning for Daniela to gain permanent legal residency because she's married to a U.S. citizen. For now, he's overjoyed to have her in his arms again. 'Honestly, it's a blessing,' he said. 'It's like an absolute miracle to have her back because I've missed her so much these three weeks. I feel like I'm whole again when I'm with her.'
