Job Opportunities

Program Officer, International Rescue Committee, New York, NY

http://ch.tbe.taleo.net/CH02/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?org=IRC&cws=1&rid=9204

Staff Attorney, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Tacoma, WA

http://www.nwirp.org/Documents/Jobs/NWIRPDetentionStaffAttorneyTacoma(May2013).pdf

National Pro Bono Promotion Counsel – Refugee Protection Program,

Human Rights First, New York, NY

http://ejob.bz/ATS/PortalViewRequirement.do?reqGK=710395

Asylum Attorney, Human Rights Initiative of North Texas, Dallas, TX

http://www.hrionline.org/get-involved/jobs-internships/

Summary of IRLC Panel

Friday, April 26, 2013 – The ABA International Refugee Law Committee and the Africa Committee co-sponsored a panel at the ABA Section of International Law Spring Meeting in Washington, D.C., titled “Rwandan Refugees – Is it Safe to Come Home?” The panel addressed the situation of Rwandan refugees in light of the UNHCR’s recommendation to invoke Cessation of their refugee status on June 30, 2013. The Cessation applies to those who escaped events in Rwanda that occurred between 1956 and 1998.

Speaking to a packed room, panelists included Filip Reyntjens, Professor of African Law and Politics at the Institute of Development Policy and Management, University of Antwerp; Olivia Bueno, International Refugee Rights Initiative’s Associate Director; and Mutuyimana Manzi a Rwandan refugee in Uganda since 2007.

The panel, organized and moderated by Northwestern Professor Galya Ruffer, provided a context of the situation in Rwanda today, considered the requirements for invocation of the Cessation of refugee status and presented a case study of who are the Rwandan refugees today and what are their concerns in regards to Cessation of their status. The focus of the panel then centered on lawyering and advocacy in such a situation in order to consider strategies, ethical concerns and responsibilities of lawyering in situations of severe oppression where lives are at risk.

As if playing into the theme of the panel, the Q&A resulted in a heated debate that carried on well past the end of the allotted time. In attendance was the Rwandan Ambassador to the United States who, along with a handful of other attendees, sought to discredit Professor Reyntjens and Mr. Manzi’s observations about the current state of affairs in Rwanda. The panel ended with moderator Professor Ruffer noting that in this difficult and complicated environment, it is indeed important to consider how lawyers give voice and protection in such a situation without making the refugees more vulnerable.

-Joe Hansen, Vice Chair of IRLC

Refugee News Update

Solutions for Syria’s Refugees

It didn’t seem as if the situation in Syria could get any worse until last week when reports surfaced that the Syrian government may be using chemical weapons. Now U.S. lawmakers are calling on President Obama to take stronger action. But what should he do?

The most pressing problem seems to be the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Syrians. The generosity of Syria’s neighbors may be reaching its limit. What’s the best way to deal with the growing refugee crisis in the region?

Source: New York Times, full article here

Published: 1 May 2013

Colombia Tops IDMC Internally Displaced People List

Almost 29 million people lived in internal displacement in 2012, with 6.5 million newly displaced just in the past year, a report by the Norwegian Refugee Council suggests.

For the fourth year running, Colombia has the highest number of internally displaced people on the list.

Source: BBC News, full article here

Published: 29 April 2013

Immigration Reform Overlooks Asylum-Seekers

Harsh rules enacted in 1996 prevent them from working for months or years, making many destitute.

“Work authorization is not meant to get you rich, it’s to let you live,” said an Egyptian asylum-seeker who fled to the United States after a radical group beat him and tried to kidnap his wife and daughter. After fleeing persecution in their home countries, asylum-seekers like this man in New Jersey face a new type of maltreatment in the United States: The U.S. government won’t let them work during what is often a drawn-out asylum process.

As a result, vulnerable people who come to this country as their last hope too often end up destitute.

Source: L.A. Times, full article here

Date: 25 April 2013

Asylum Seekers Can Start Working Sooner Thanks To Class Action Lawsuit Settlement

The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice have reached an agreement to allow asylum seekers whose cases have been pending for more than six months to apply for employment authorization — a huge relief to the thousands of people who have come to the United States to escape persecution who struggle to make ends meet as their applications are being reviewed.

At the heart of the class action lawsuit is the so-called “asylum clock” — the six month waiting period between the time an asylum seeker files for an asylum application and when that person can apply for legal work authorization. In the past, the asylum clock began only after the applicant was granted a hearing with an immigration judge and started without notice to the asylum seeker. But the settlement would give non-detained applicants at least 45 days to prepare for an expedited hearing.

Source: Think Progress, full article here

Date: 25 April 2013

Uganda Pilots Mobile Courts for Refugees

KAMPALA, 23 April 2013 (IRIN) – Uganda’s government and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) have launched a pilot mobile court system to improve access to justice for victims of crimes in Nakivale, the country’s oldest and largest refugee settlement.

The magistrate’s court, whose first session began on 15 April, will hear cases of robbery, land disputes, child rape, sexual and gender-based violence, attempted murder, and murder. The project – a collaboration of the Uganda government, UNHCR, Makerere University’s Refugee Law Project (RLP) and the Uganda Human Rights Council – aims to benefit some 68,000 refugees and 35,000 Ugandan nationals in the settlement.

“With the nearest law court currently 50km away in Kabingo, Isingiro, access to justice has been a real problem for refugees and locals alike. As a result many fail to report crimes and are forced to wait for long periods before their cases are heard in court,” said a UNHCR briefing on the programme.

Source: IRIN, full article here

Published: 23 April 2013

When It Comes to Somalia’s Displaced, Don’t Mistake Ambition for Achievement

As the number of internally displaced people in the world reaches record levels, Somalia’s situation highlights why creative solutions are needed to assist returnees.

Somalia’s new government is beginning to build confidence in its ability to progress the country’s recovery. The UK opened its new embassy – a collection of shipping containers painted white – in Mogadishu last week, and other European countries are following suit. Somalia’s progress raises an immediate question: is it now time for hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced people living in the region to return?

Source: The Guardian, full article here

Date: 29 April 2013

Educational Opportunities

Title: Short Courses

Planning Organization: Center for Migration and Refugee Studies (CMRS), The American University in Cairo (AUC)

Date: June 2013 

Description: Center for Migration and Refugee Studies (CMRS) short courses provide specialized education in particular topics within the field of refugees and forced migration. Each course is an intensive five days course tailored towards practitioners in the field as well as students and researchers. Participants include staff members of the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Office of Migration, Caritas, churches, human rights lawyers and NGOs. The participants do not only come from Egypt and the surrounding regions but also from Europe, the United States and Asia.

Recently our courses have attracted AUC students, both undergraduates and graduate students, from the fields of political science, anthropology, sociology and human rights, and many of them decided to pursue the migration and refugee studies graduate diploma as a result of their positive experiences in CMRS short courses. Refugees in Cairo also attend our courses and add their unique perspective. Their participation is facilitated by tuition waivers provided by CMRS. Some of our short courses are either provided annually or repeated according to demand.

Two of our regular courses that are repeated each year are “The International Refugee and Human Rights Law” and “Meeting the Psychosocial Needs of Refugees.” Most of our courses are delivered through a combination of lectures and interactive small group exercises where participants learn how to relate theory to practice. CMRS has offered over 30 short courses since its establishment in 2000.

Eligibility for all courses:

The courses are offered for graduate level students, researchers and practitioners in the field of migration and refugees. The maximum number of participants in each course is between 10 and 30.

All courses are conducted in English and no translation services are provided. Participants should have a sufficient command of the English language.

There are scholarships offered only to qualified candidates from the developing countries.

The course will run with minimum of 10 participants.

1. International Refugee Law (June 2 – 6, 2013)

Instructor: Parastou Hassouri

Deadlines: The deadline for submitting course applications are:

For scholarships: May 10, 2013; For self sponsored participants or for participants sponsored by any organization or their employer: May 15, 2013; Deadline for paying course deposit is May 22, 2013

Location: AUC Tahrir Square

2. From Arab Winter to Arab Spring: Refugee and Migration Movements in the Middle East and North Africa (June 9- 14, 2013)

Instructor: Shaden Khallaf

Deadlines: The deadline for submitting course applications is:

For scholarships: May 15; For self sponsored participants or for participants sponsored by any organization or their employer: May 18; Deadline for paying course deposit is May 27

Location: AUC New Cairo.

3. Addressing Global Trends: Psychosocial and Mental Health Interventions for Refugees Living the Urban Context (June 16 – 20, 2013): 

Instructor: Nancy Baron

Deadlines: The deadline for submitting course applications are:

For scholarships: May 19; For self sponsored participants or for participants sponsored by any organization or their employer: May 22; Deadline for paying course deposit is May 31

Location: AUC Tahrir Square.

4. International Migration and the State System (June 23 – 27, 2013)

Instructor: Craig D. Smith, MSc

Deadlines: The deadline for submitting course applications is:

For scholarships: May 19; For self sponsored participants or for participants sponsored by any organization or their employer: May 22; Deadline for paying course deposit is May 31

Location: AUC Tahrir Square.

Cost: The tuition fee for each course is $500.

Participants are expected to pay a 30 percent of the total fees ($150) as a deposit. Please pay attention to the deposit deadline for each course and kindly note that the deposit is non-refundable.

More information on payment method will be provided to accepted participants

Tuition fees will cover course material and two coffee breaks per course day.

Accommodation costs for those interested in staying at the recommended hotel will be announced shortly. Any other expenses are not included.

Number of Participants: Minimum of 10

NB: Non-Egyptian applicants are strongly encouraged to apply three weeks before the course starts, in order to have enough time to obtain their visa

Application: To apply for the courses, please fill out the application and attach your most recent CV and send to cmrscourses@aucegypt.edu: Att. Naseem Hashim. .

Applicants may apply and be accepted to more than one course. Please do not hesitate to contact cmrscourses@aucegypt.edu  if you have any difficulty with the application process.

Applicants accepted for the course will be notified by email within a week after the deadline for submitting the application

Link: http://www.aucegypt.edu/GAPP/cmrs/outreach/Pages/ShortCourses.aspx

Title:  “73^rd Course on Refugee Law (English)”

Planning Organization: International Institute of Humanitarian Law in cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.  They are supported by: the Swiss Federal Office for Migration, US State Department (Bureau of Populations, Refugees and Migration), the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Location: Sanremo, Italy

Date: November 19, 2013 to November 23, 2013

Description:  The course aims to increase the knowledge and skills of government officials involved in the formulation and the application of legislation and policies affecting people in need of protection, and who have only a basic knowledge of International Refugee Law.  It is also open to those interested from civil society, particularly those in advocacy for the protection of forcibly uprooted people.

Participants in the course have the opportunity to interact with the practitioners and experts in the field of refugee and migrant protection, who facilitate the various thematic sessions of the programme.  Different learning methodologies are used to encourage participants to apply knowledge and skills acquired in operations in a practical and pragmatic manner.

Cost: € 700

Deadline: The deadline for applications is one month prior to the start of the course.

Link: http://www.iihl.org/Default.aspx?itemid=64&pageid=page11894

Title:  “Refugee Studies Centre Public Seminar Series”

Planning Organization: Refugee Studies Centre, Oxford Department of International Development, University of Oxford

Location: Oxford Department of International Development, 3 Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TB

Date: Various

Description:

May 8, 2013	Tracks Across Sand: the dispossession of the ‡Khomani San of the southern Kalahari Professor Hugh Brody Seminar Room 3, Oxford Department of International Development, 3 Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3TB
May 15, 2013	Evidence about torture in the UK asylum system Dr Toby Kelly (University of Edinburgh) Seminar Room 1, Oxford Department of International Development, 3 Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TB
May 22, 2013	Constitutionalism, ethnicity and minority rights in Africa: a legal appraisal from the Great Lakes region Dr Jeremie Gilbert (Middlesex University) Seminar Room 1, Oxford Department of International Development, 3 Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TB
May 29, 2013	Family ties: remittances and support in Puntland and Somaliland Dr Laura Hammond (School of Oriental and African Studies) Seminar Room 1, Oxford Department of International Development, 3 Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TB

Link: http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/events/public-seminars

US Immigration Regulations: HIV-Positive Persons and the Continued Stigma

The views presented in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the ABA Refugee Law Committee.

Michelle Amrit Kaur*

Immigration into the United States can be an overwhelming process. Until recently, that process was impossible for anybody living with HIV. Many HIV-positive immigrants apply for amnesty after arriving into the United States. U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) does not guarantee amnesty for HIV-positive people, but it is possible for those who come from countries where persecution is high for HIV-positive people. Agencies are supposed to follow uniform standards to safeguard against discriminatory practices. Additionally, they are supposed to abide by past practice in decision-making. However, there is a large variation among court decisions, even when circumstances are similar. Current immigration standards are inadequate to ensure equal standards for handling HIV-positive asylum cases.

Until recently, USCIS did not grant visas for HIV-positive people. On July 30, 2008, President Bush signed the United States Global Leadership against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008.

The Act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to eliminate HIV as a health condition that could prevent anyone with HIV from entering into the United States. HIV-positive people still could not qualify for a visa, though. The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (HHS/CDC) still had HIV listed as a communicable disease of public health significance.

On July 2, 2009, CDC proposed a rule change to amend Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 34,

to remove HIV from the list. The CDC published it in the Federal Register as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for a 45-day public comment period.

The CDC published its Final Rule in the Federal Register on November 2, 2009, which was effective January 4, 2010.

Due to the change, USCIS will no longer find HIV-positive applicants ineligible under Section 212(a)(1)(A)(i) of the INA.

Once an HIV-positive person has entered the U.S., there is a small window of opportunity for the person to file for asylum. The immigrant must file for amnesty within one year of entering into the United States.

Additionally, USCIS must consider the immigrant a refugee in order to file for amnesty.

A refugee is a person who is outside of their home country and who is unable to seek protection of that country due to persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

The INA does not specifically define persecution. The courts, however, have held that “a threat to life or freedom on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group is always persecution.”

The courts have also defined persecution as “the infliction of suffering or harm upon those who differ in a way regarded as offensive.”

To demonstrate the well-founded fear element, the immigrant must establish that they have both a subjective and objective fear of returning to their country of origin.

For the subjective element, “an asylum applicant’s candid, credible, and sincere testimony demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution satisfies the subjective component of the well-founded fear standard.”

The objective component is whether a reasonable person in the applicant’s circumstances would fear persecution. This element requires credible, direct, and specific evidence that supports a reasonable fear of persecution.

The next step is for the immigrant to establish that there is a pattern of persecution against similarly situated persons in their native country and that fear upon return is reasonable.

The final step is to establish membership in a particular social group.

The courts have defined this element as a group in which “the members of the group either cannot change, or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences.”

HIV-positive immigrants may apply for amnesty as a member of a particular social group because they cannot change their HIV status. While this may seem straightforward, especially for a person coming from a country well known for persecution of its citizens, the immigrant’s greatest challenge is persuading the court that the person has met the elements for asylum.

The issues facing HIV-positive people outside the United States are vast. Medical services are often hard to come by, but regions such as Africa have substantially increased treatment availability around the continent. Despite aid to the region, persecution is still a reality for HIV-positive women in Africa. Medical personnel in various parts of Africa routinely sterilize HIV-positive women without the women’s informed consent.

The reason for sterilization is to prevent HIV-positive women from giving birth to HIV-positive babies.

However, with medication during pregnancy and a cesarean birth, a newborn is likely to be born HIV-negative.

Yet, forced sterilizations continue. While American and international organizations have increased aid around the world for HIV treatments, remote regions still lack services. Some countries attempt to block international aid for HIV and have even persecuted doctors who provide services for HIV-positive people.

While the stigma of HIV often hinders treatment quality and availability, the stigma is greater for those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender and HIV-positive (LGBT/H). Uganda, for instance, is currently debating the so-called “Kill the Gays Bill” in which homosexuality would be a crime punishable by death.

One LGBT/H Ugandan recently won amnesty due to the continued issues in the country.

This does not guarantee all LGBT/H Ugandans currently in the United States will receive asylum. The courts do not always apply past practice when deciding asylum cases. Even cases within the same circuit with similar circumstances may have differing outcomes. For instance, the 9th Circuit granted asylum to one Mexican LGBT/H on the grounds that he proved past persecution and a well-founded fear,

but the same court denied another Mexican LGBT/H six years later stating he failed to prove past persecution and a well-founded fear.

Despite laws enacted in Mexico between the two cases against homosexual based discrimination, LGBT/H persecution in Mexico was still widespread at the time of the case and remains true today.

One sad factor that courts use to determine cases such as these is whether a person appears “gay enough.”

Instead of a uniform method for asylum decision making, courts are using stereotypes to decide if a person is “gay enough” to face persecution in their native country.

An immigrant might meet all the required elements, but the court may still deny the case due to how the person appears or talks.

Despite clear elements for asylum in the United States, the courts’ application of case facts to those elements has not been uniform. HIV-positive immigrants must not only convince the courts that they meet the basic elements for asylum, but that they also fit into the stereotypes determined by the courts. The courts do not use past practice or uniform standards in determining asylum cases for HIV-positive people. Current immigration standards are inadequate to ensure equal standards for handling HIV-positive asylum cases.

* Michelle Amrit Kaur is a student in the George Washington University Master’s in Paralegal Studies Program. She graduated with a Bachelor in Arts in Criminology and Criminal Justice from the University of Texas at Arlington.

¹ Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-293, § 305, 122 Stat. 2918.

² 42 C.F.R. § 34.2 (2010).

³ Id.

⁴ Medical Examination of Aliens- Removal of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection from Definition of Communicable Disease of Public Health Significance, 74 Fed. Reg. 31798 (July 2, 2009) (to be codified at 42 C.F.R. pt. 34).

⁵ Medical Examination of Aliens- Removal of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection from Definition of Communicable Disease of Public Health Significance, 74 Fed. Reg. 56547 (Nov. 2, 2009) (to be codified at 42 C.F.R. pt. 34).

⁶ 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(1)(A)(i) (2011).

⁷ Green Card Through Refugee or Asylee Status, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3416a6c515083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3416a6c515083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD#.

⁸ 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2010).

⁹ Id.

¹⁰ Matter of Laipenieks, 18 I. & N. Dec. 433, 457 (B.I.A. 1983).

¹¹ Korablina v. I.N.S., 158 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 1998); Miranda v. I.N.S., 139 F.3d 624, 626 (8th Cir. 1998).

¹² I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987).

¹³ Berrotera-Melendez v. I.N.S., 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir. 1992).

¹⁴ Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2004).

¹⁵ 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii) (2010).

¹⁶ Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211 (B.I.A. 1985).

¹⁷ Id. at 233-234.

¹⁸ Litigating Against the Forced Sterilization of HIV-Positive Women: Recent Developments in Chile and Nambia, 23 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 223 (2010).

¹⁹ Id.

²⁰ Id.

²¹ Background: Jailed Doctors in Iran (updated), Physicians for Human Rights, http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/issues/persecution-of-health-workers/iran/iran-free-the-docs.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2013).

²² Henry Wasswa, Uganda’s ‘Kill the Gays’ Bill Spreads Fear, Al Jazeera (Jan. 3, 2013), http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/01/2013121392698654.html.

²³ Will O’Bryan, New Neighbor: Gay Ugandan Living in D.C. Wins Asylum in the U.S., Metro Weekly (May 26, 2011), http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=6271.

²⁴ Boer-Sedano v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2005).

²⁵ Castro-Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2011).

²⁶ The Violations of the Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Persons in Mexico: A Shadow Report, Global Rights (2010), http://www.globalrights.org/site/DocServer/LGBT_ICCPR_Shadow_Report_Mexico.pdf.

²⁷ Dan Bilefsky, Gays Seeking Asylum in U. S. Encounter a New Hurdle, The New York Times (Jan. 28, 2011), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/nyregion/29asylum.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

²⁸ Id.

Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan and the Influx of Refugees

The views presented in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the ABA Refugee Law Committee.

Farrah Qazi*

For a young country, Pakistan’s history is fraught with turmoil, change and inequities. Perhaps one of its most glaring inconsistencies lies with its blasphemy laws. By definition, Pakistan is a democratic nation. It is a signatory to the universally accepted Charter of Human Rights. Its constitution also guarantees its people the right to choose and exercise their religion freely. Despite this, the military ruler, President Zia-ul-Haq introduced 295B to the Pakistan Penal Code in 1982.

Blasphemy Laws and Its History

Pakistan Penal Code, section 295B, punishes “defiling the Holy Quran with life imprisonment”.

In 1986, Section 295C mandated the death penalty for “use of derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Prophet”.

In 1990, the Federal Shari’ah Court ruled that the penalty should be a mandatory death sentence, with no right to a reprieve or pardon. Commonly known as the blasphemy law, section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 states that any person who ‘by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly’ defiles the name of the Prophet, Mohammad or other holy personages, is liable for blasphemy.

In addition to a fine, he shall be punished with the death sentence or life imprisonment.

The original blasphemy law dates back to when Great Britain ruled India, and what is now Pakistan. It was intended to prevent Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs from using inflammatory religious language against each other. However, under President Zia-ul-Haq, the law was changed to protect the Sunni version of Islam alone. It has become an effective tool to legitimatize the discrimination and persecution of religious minorities.

Explicit Discrimination of Religious Minorities

The law explicitly discriminates against religious minorities and mentions one group in particular.

An entire section, section 298A-C, is devoted to the minority Muslim sect of Ahmadiyyat. Under this section, an Ahmadi Muslim who practices his/her religion is subject to fines, imprisonment and even death. Such innocuous gestures as using Arabic terminology, saying prayers, attending a mosque, or introducing oneself as a Muslim are grounds for punishment under the blasphemy law. Section 298-C specifically states:

“Any person….(who call themselves Ahmadis or any other name), who directly or indirectly, posses himself as a Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith…, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine”.

Since Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims, their religious actions are essentially the same as other Muslims. Thus, this law has the effect of a widespread ban on the public practice of their faith. Ahmadi Muslims differ from other Muslims because they believe the promised Messiah has already come in the personage of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

However, the rest of the Muslim population rejects him and regard Ahmadis as non-Muslims. Under Pakistan’s blasphemy law, any Islamic action an Ahmadi takes is considered an “insult” to the religion and punishable by arrest. A rough survey shows that more than 3,000 Ahmadis have been charged or arrested for these crimes from 1984 to 2001, under this law.

Numerous others have been killed and forced to seek asylum elsewhere.

Although Ahmadi Muslims have suffered the most under the penal code, they are not the only affected minorities. Recently, cases have emerged of Christians being arrested and sentenced to death for similar offenses. The Pakistani Catholic Bishops’ Justice and Peace Commission in 2005 estimated that since 1988, approximately 650 people had been falsely accused and arrested under the blasphemy law. During the same period about 20 Christians had been killed and 80 were in prison after being accused of blasphemy.

Such cases have led to a widespread belief, both in and outside Pakistan, that the criminal provisions against blasphemy are being abused.

In fact, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Human Rights Commission and other international organizations have all called for the immediate repeal of the blasphemy law. In response to protests, President Pervez Musharaff promised to modify the laws during the elections of December 2000. However, he failed to fulfill this promise. Thus, the law remains in full force today.

Abuses under the Blasphemy Laws

The Pakistan penal code allows anyone to file a claim of blasphemy against another. To initiate a blasphemy claim, anyone can file a First Information Report (FIR) at the local police station.

Once a charge is filed, the police can arrest the accused and investigate the charge afterwards. Thus, arrests are made without any evidence to corroborate the claim.

As a result, the law is often used against political and personal enemies. It is also used by Muslim fundamentalists or for personal revenge.

Implications for immigration attorneys in the United States

For attorneys practicing immigration law, the issue of Ahmadi Muslims seeking asylum from Pakistan may arise. Given the existence of the Pakistan Penal Code, favorable arguments for asylum can be made. Of course, a practitioner must examine the individual’s facts and assess it according to the requirements outlined in the US Immigration and Nationality Act.

As a brief review, a refugee must prove three things in order to succeed on an asylum case: (1) s/he has a well-founded fear of persecution or has suffered past persecution; (2) that such persecution is on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion; and (3) that asylum should be granted in the exercise of discretion.

For this purpose, a well-founded fear means a reasonable possibility of persecution.

This can be established by showing:(1) that he or she possesses a belief or characteristic a persecutor seeks to overcome in others by means of punishment of some sort; (2) the persecutor is already aware, or could become aware, that he or she possesses this belief or characteristic; (3) the persecutor has the capability of punishing the alien; and (4) the persecutor has the inclination to punish the alien. Also, the government must inflict the persecution.

Every asylum case is different, and no outcome is guaranteed. The mere existence of a law cannot guarantee asylum for every Ahmadi Muslim, Christian or other religious minority emigrating from Pakistan. Also, the mere membership in a particular religious group is not sufficient to establish an asylum claim.

However, an understanding of the law and the current state of affairs in Pakistan may help to serve such a client better.

* Farrah Qazi is a human rights attorney, specializing in such women’s issues as global education, maternal health and the trafficking of women and children. She is a writer and public speaker who manages her own law firm and sits on the board of several NGO’s and charitible foundations. She also advocates against the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims, and other minorities, in the Muslim world.  She provides pro bono assistance to victims of trafficking and domestic and sexual abuse.

¹ See Pakistan Penal Code 295-B.v

² Pakistan Penal Code 295-C.

³ See Pakistan Penal Code 295-B.

⁴ Amnesty International. “ Blasphemy Laws should be abolished”, August 21, 2001. Amnesty International states:  “ The blasphemy laws of Pakistan are a handy tool to silence debate and dissent. They are also used to detain people when the real motivation includes land issues or professional rivalry. In the interest of justice, the blasphemy laws should be abolished or as a first step amended to prevent abuse.”

⁵ Human Rights Watch. “Pandering to Extremists Fuels Persecution of Ahmadis”, May 6, 2007.

⁶ Pakistan Penal Code 298-C.

⁷ See http://www.alislam.org.

⁸ United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Report on International Freedom. May 2001.

⁹ See www. AsiaNews.it, January 9, 2006.

¹⁰ Id, May 2001.

¹¹ Id, May 2001.

¹² 8 USC §1101(a)(42)(a).

¹³ INS vs. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987).

¹⁴ Refahiyat vs. INS, F.3d 553, 557(10th Cir. 1994).

Conversations with International Refugee Law Attorneys: Zaid Hydari

Zaid Hydari is a graduate of Fordham University School of Law. As a Deans’ Fellow following graduation, Zaid co-directed a Leitner Clinic project that addressed the human rights implications of U.S. immigration law. As the recipient of the James E. Tolan Human Rights Fellowship, Zaid served as a legal adviser with HCA-RASP from Sept 2010 to Sept 2011, when he began his current role as the co-coordinator of the Refugee Status Determination Legal Assistance Unit.

- How did you become interested in the field of international refugee law? 

In addition to the interest sparked in me by my own family history of migration, as a teenager in Houston, TX, I accompanied my mother as she volunteered to assist resettled refugee families from Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Helping children with homework and arranging furniture donations influenced my decision to pursue an understanding of refugee law while a student at Fordham Law School. Committed to public interest but not sure where exactly to focus my attention, I was drawn to refugee legal aid as an opportunity to work directly on pressing human rights issues facing millions of the most vulnerable people worldwide.

- How and when did you become involved with the Refugee Solidarity Network?

The idea behind RSN was formulated before I began working for the Helsinki Citizens Assembly Refugee Program (HCA-RASP) in Istanbul. When I joined the NGO in 2010, I was immediately impressed with the level of professionalism and expertise demonstrated by the organization, but was also struck by their funding and resource limitations. When I heard that an idea existed to make a connection between our NGO and the United States, I was inspired to make it a reality. With the help of current and former colleagues, we formalized this idea and began thinking of all the ways in which refugee rights advocates in Turkey and the U.S. could engage with and learn from one another.

- What do you consider to be the greatest achievement of the Refugee Solidarity Network?

The project is new but we have already made great progress in raising awareness and building a network of interested parties in the U.S.. I am very proud of our board of directors and advisory board who have helped us start the transition between the initial start-up phase and an operational one. We have already launched a research support project in partnership with Northwestern University’s Center for Forced Migration Studies, and are continuing to develop two very exciting legal engagement projects in which we hope to bring together the American and Turkish legal communities to discuss how pro bono hours and law school clinics can be institutionalized in Turkey. We also continue to explore ways to raise funding for refugee legal aid in Turkey, and hope to have our 501c3 status soon to start soliciting donations.

- How are refugees treated by the Turkish government and people?

In Turkey, only European refugees are given the option for long-term integration into Turkish society. Asylum-seekers from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia, the largest groups seeking asylum each year, are only given temporary asylum, which means even if recognized as refugees by the UNHCR and the Turkish government, they await resettlement to third-countries (U.S.A., Canada, Australia, Norway), which is limited. That being said, the Turkish government is trying to make changes to its incomplete asylum system through new legislation, but we are talking about a very substantive challenge. Turkey is a major country of asylum and transit, currently hosting about 200,000 Syrian refugees as well as receiving around 20,000 applications from individuals from other countries in 2012. Despite huge increases in arrivals on a yearly basis, Turkish people are not generally aware of what asylum-seekers have been through. Like any population, there are elements that are xenophobic, while others are generous. We think that there is a lot of potential for sensitization and awareness-raising among all sectors of Turkish society to the issues and experiences of refugees.

- Is there anything different in your approach from other organizations that work in the field of refugee law? 

RSN does not seek to reinvent the wheel. RSN believes that there are already committed organizations and individuals working within Turkey’s civil society on asylum and migration issues and they need to be supported. Many times organizations working overseas want to impose solutions or programs. RSN hopes to organize and coordinate willingness to help on the American side and translate that into effective ends for Turkish refugee rights advocates.

-What advancements in the law do you think would help improve the situation for refugees? 

Refugees around the world face similar difficulties, like being prohibited the legal right to work or gain access to basic services. RSN and its local partners work on such issues, at the national, regional, and international level. For example, HCA RASP was actively involved in influencing Turkey’s first-ever comprehensive legislation on asylum and refugee issues last year, a law that has been introduced to Parliament for consideration, while also working at the European level. Such advocacy hopes to raise the bar not only in Turkey, but across the world. RSN’s role is to take best practices from the American model and try to apply them to Turkey, while leaving the worst practices behind.

-Any advice you would like to give to law students and attorneys who are looking to work with international refugees?

Funding is readily available for international internships over 1L and 2L summers, but those are only periods of about 10 weeks, and therefore not enough time for NGO’s in the field to train students and also allow them to contribute meaningfully before their departure. RSN hopes to engage in training programs to help address this issue, but law students should put pressure on their law schools and legal communities to fund post-graduate opportunities overseas.  Funding for 6 months or more is much more valuable to NGOs. Getting familiar with refugee law, client interaction, language skills, and securing funding are concrete things that can be undertaken to make oneself a more productive volunteer or potential employee.

For More Information on the Refugee Solidarity Network visit:

http://www.refugeesolidaritynetwork.org/