More Power, Less Accountability: The Need for Reform of Frontex Procedures on the Treatment of Asylum-Seekers

August 13, 2021

The current system for holding European Border and Coast Guard Agency ("Frontex") agents accountable is opaque and ineffective. This note proposes, first, that the European Parliament establish clear procedures that Frontex agents must follow when they encounter migrants seeking international protection. This note also advocates for the creation of a transparent accountability mechanism for Frontex agents who fail to abide by these procedures.

Read More

Narrowing Article 1(D)’s Interpretation to Expand Access to Asylum for Palestinians

July 28, 2021

Neither UNHCR nor states need to continue to exclude broad swaths of Palestine refugees under Art. 1(D). The justifications for perpetual, broad exclusion fall short. They are especially concerning because there is another, narrower interpretation of Art. 1(D) exclusion. This interpretation is faithful both to the Convention’s text and to the right to seek asylum—including for asylum-seekers of Palestinian descent.

Read More

The Concept of ‘Protection’ by Non-State Actors in the Country of Origin and the Revocation of the Refugee Status

July 16, 2021

Analyzing CJEU Case C-255/19, Secretary of State for the Home Department v. O A, which failed to clarify the meaning of protection by non-state actors in EU asylum law. This concept seems not to be in accordance with the notion of state protection in the Refugee Convention.

Read More

Replacing a Good Faith Approach with a Well-Founded Fear Approach

May 25, 2021

May 25, 2021 By Emily Harris Third-year student at the University of Michigan Law School Introduction The 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 protocol which updated the Convention defines refugee.[1] Article 1...

Read More

Toward Principles for Refugee Claims Based on Unenforced Persecutory Laws

November 10, 2020

If it is true that “queer cases make bad law,” then in cases like these, which raise difficult questions relevant to the LGBT community, courts should be especially diligent in showing each step of the analysis, and not blind themselves to the social realities the applicant in front of them faces.

Read More

No Fame Required: Where Matter of L-E-A- Went Wrong

January 29, 2020

In Matter of L-E-A-, the Attorney General abandoned the United States’ long-standing acceptance of family as a particular social group and held instead that nuclear family will no longer necessarily qualify as a particular social group. This decision is incorrect and departs not only from the U.S.’s own jurisprudence, but also from other jurisdictions’ acceptance of family-based particular social groups.

Read More

Clumsy Precedents and Arbitrary Discretion: Britain’s Country Guidance System and The Obligation of Non-Refoulment

December 8, 2019

The way in which British immigration courts issue country guidance cases and use them during the well-founded fear inquiry fails to ensure that asylum applicants receive the individualized assessment that is needed to avoid returning them to countries where they risk persecution on a protected ground. Country guidance should not serve as an obstacle to claiming asylum, but rather as a way for similarly situated refugees to efficiently demonstrate prima facia cases for protection.

Read More

Resolving Negusie: The Attorney General Should Recognize a Broad Duress Defense to Article 1(F)(a) and Grant Asylum

June 6, 2019

There is growing international consensus that Article 1(F)(a) of the Refugee Convention contains a duress defense. However, the U.S. Attorney General recently stayed the decision of the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals to recognize this defense and requested amici to brief on whether such a defense exists. The Attorney General should affirm the existence of a duress defense in Article 1(F)(a), incorporate the Rome Statute as the test for this defense, and resolve unsettled interpretative questions about the Statute’s elements in favor of the refugee applicant.

Read More

Love the Refugee, Hate the Group: The Troublesome Precedent of Halim

April 26, 2019

Courts around the world accept evidence of persecution of persons similarly situated to the individual applicant to help establish his or her risk of persecution. Several U.S. courts, however, diverge from this practice. Should all claims, whether based on individual experiences or on those of persons similarly situated, be evaluated under the "reasonable possibility" standard?

Read More

Building Myanmar’s International Responsibility before the ICJ by Recourse to Diplomatic Protection

January 26, 2019

Once host states are aware of, and willing to act on, the deficiencies in their current stance surrounding the persecuting state’s responsibility, it could bring an adversarial suit before an international court, specifically the ICJ. The answer to lacking state responsibility may lie in utilizing diplomatic protection’s pragmatic approach.

Read More
Page 1 of 5