Asylum and "Credible Fear" Issues in U.S. Immigration Policy

Asylum and “Credible Fear” Issues in U.S. Immigration PolicyThe asylum patterns of these six selected source countries over the 13-year period variedconsiderably. Asylum seekers from Colombia, for example, were peaking in the early 2000s whilethe asylum seekers from El Salvador were dipping. Ethiopians and Haitians tracked steadily andrevealed similar levels of affirmative versus defensive asylum claims (albeit Haiti’s levels werehigher overall). In contrast, Chinese, Salvadoran and Mexican levels of affirmative versusdefensive asylum claims each yielded unique fluctuations over time. Regardless of the overalldecrease in asylum cases since the enactment of IIRIRA in 1996, this data analysis suggests thatconditions in the major source countries—whether economic, environmental, political, religiousor social—were likely the driving force behind asylum seekers. 51Approvals of Asylum CasesCountry conditions lie at the core of the principle that the United States will not return a foreignnational to a country where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion,nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. As discussed more fullyabove, individualized persecution or persecution resulting from group identity may form the basisof the asylum claim. In the individualized instance, if the asylum seeker demonstrates that there isa reasonable possibility of suffering such persecution as an individual if he or she were to returnto that country; and he or she is unable or unwilling to return to, or avail himself or herself of theprotection of, that country because of such fear; then the fear of persecution is deemedreasonable. In the group identity instance, if the asylum seeker establishes that there is a patternor practice in his or her home country of persecution of a group of persons similarly situated tothe applicant on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, orpolitical opinion; and establishes his or her own inclusion in and identification with such group ofpersons; then the fear of persecution is deemed reasonable. 52Analysis of Approvals by CountryGiven the sheer number of asylum seekers from the PRC in FY2009, it is not particularlysurprising that the PRC led in the number of asylum cases approved by USCIS and EOIR inFY2009 (Figure 13). Moreover, abuse of human rights in the PRC has been a principal area ofconcern in the United States for many years. 53 Presumably, PRC asylum seekers are alsobenefiting from the provision enabling aliens to claim asylum on the basis of persecutionresulting from resistance to coercive population control policies, given the well-known populationcontrol policies of the PRC.The portion of approved asylum cases from Haiti was consistent with its portion of asylumseekers in FY2009. Specifically, Haiti represented shares of asylum cases that USCIS and EOIRapproved—4.8% and 4.0%, respectively (Figure 13)—that were comparable to the portion ofasylum cased filed with USCIS and EOIR in FY2009—4.5% and 4.6%, respectively (Figure 5).51 For further background, see the “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,” which DOS submits annually to theU.S. Congress in compliance with §116(d) and §502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and §504of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Reports from 1999 through 2009 are available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/.52 8 C.F.R. §208.13(b)(2).53 CRS Report RL34729, Human Rights in China: Trends and Policy Implications, by Thomas Lum and HannahFischer.Congressional Research Service 22