Memorandum for: L. Francis Cissna — East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al. v. William Barr, et al.
- Date
- 2019-01-25
Source document: Memorandum for: L. Francis Cissna — East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al. v. William Barr, et al.; document type: Certified administrative record (volume covering AR539–AR713).
Full text
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Policy Guidance for Implementation of the Migrant Protection
Protocols
January 25, 2019
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR:
L. Francis Cissna
Director
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Kevin K. McAleenan
Commissioner
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Ronald D. Vitiello
Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of
Director
U.S. Immigration and Cust ms Enforcement
Secretary
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
Homeland
Security
On December 20, 2018, I announced that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
consistent with the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), will begin implementation of
Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) on a large-scale basis to
address the migration crisis along our southern border. In 1996, Congress added Section
235(b)(2)(C) to the INA. This statutory authority allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to
return certain applicants for admission to the contiguous country from which they are arriving on
land ( whether or not at a designated port of entry) pending removal proceedings under Section
240 of the INA. Consistent with the MPP, citizens and nationals of countries other than Mexico
("third-country nationals") arriving in the United States by land from Mexico-illegally or
without proper documentation-may be returned to Mexico pursuant to Section 235(b)(2)(C) for
the duration of their Section 240 removal proceedings.
AR539
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 1 of 175
Section 235(b)(2)(C) and the MPP
The United States issued the following statement on December 20, 2018, regarding
implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols:
[T]he United States will begin the process of implementing Section 235(b )(2)(C)
.. . with respect to non-Mexican nationals who may be arriving on land (whether
or not at a designated port of entry) seeking to enter the United States from Mexico
illegally or without proper documentation. Such implementation will be done
consistent with applicable domestic and international legal obligations. Individuals
subject to this action may return to the United States as necessary and appropriate
to attend their immigration court proceedings.
The United States understands that, according to the Mexican law of migration, the
Government of Mexico will afford such individuals all legal and procedural
protection[s] provided for under applicable domestic and international law. That
includes applicable international human rights law and obligations as a party to the
1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (and its 1967 Protocol) and the
Convention Against Torture.
The United States further recognizes that Mexico is implementing its own,
sovereign, migrant protection protocols providing humanitarian support for and
humanitarian visas to migrants.
The United States proposes a joint effort with the Government of Mexico to develop
a comprehensive regional plan in consultation with foreign partners to address
irregular migration, smuggling, and trafficking with the goal of promoting human
rights, economic development, and security. 1
The Government of Mexico, in response, issued a statement on December 20, 2018.
That
statement provides, in part, as follows:
1. For humanitarian reasons, [the Government of Mexico] will authorize the
temporary entrance of certain foreign individuals coming from the United
States who entered that country at a port of entry or who were detained between
ports of entry, have been interviewed by U.S. immigration authorities, and have
received a notice to appear before an immigration judge. This is based on
current Mexican legislation and the international commitments Mexico has
signed, such as the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, its Protocol,
and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, among others.
1 Letter from Charged' Affaires John S. Creamer to Sr. Jesus Seade, Subsecretaria para America del Norte,
Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores (Dec. 20, 2018).
2
AR540
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 2 of 175
2. It will allow foreigners who have received a notice to appear to request
admission into Mexican territory for humanitarian reasons at locations
designated for the international transit of individuals and to remain in national
territory. This would be a "stay for humanitarian reasons" and they would be
able to enter and leave national territory multiple times.
3. It will ensure that foreigners who have received their notice to appear have all
the rights and freedoms recognized in the Constitution, the international treaties
to which Mexico is a party, and its Migration Law. They will be entitled to
equal treatment with no discrimination whatsoever and due respect will be paid
to their human rights. They will also have the opportunity to apply for a work
permit for paid employment, which will allow them to meet their basic needs.
4. It will ensure that the measures taken by each government are coordinated at a
technical and operational level in order to put mechanisms in place that allow
migrants who have receive[d] a notice to appear before a U.S. immigration
judge have access without interference to information and legal services, and to
prevent fraud and abuse. 2
Prosecutorial Discretion and Non-Refoulement in the Context of the MPP
In exercising their prosecutorial discretion regarding whether to place an alien arriving by land
from Mexico in Section 240 removal proceedings (rather than another applicable proceeding
pursuant to the INA), and, if doing so, whether to return the alien to the contiguous country from
which he or she is arriving pursuant to Section 235(b)(2)(C), DHS officials should act consistent
with the non-refoulement principles contained in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to
the Status ofRefugees3 (1951 Convention) and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).4 Specifically, a third-
country national should not be involuntarily returned to Mexico pursuant to Section 235(b)(2)(C)
of the INA if the alien would more likely than not be persecuted on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion (unless such alien has
engaged in criminal, persecutory, or terrorist activity described in Section 24l(b)(3)(B) of the
2 Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, Position of Mexico on the Decision of the U. S. Government to Invoke Section
235(b)(2)(C) of its Immigration and Nationality Act (Dec. 20, 2018).
3 The United States is not a party to the 1951 Convention but is a party to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of
Refugees, which incorporates Articles 2 to 34 of the 195 I Convention. Article 33 of the 1951 Convention provides
that: "[n]o Contracting State shall expel or return ('refou/er ') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of
territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of
a particular social group or political opinion."
4 Article 3 of the CAT states, "No State Party shall expel, return ('refouler') or extradite a person to another State
where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." See also
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA), Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. G, Title XXII, §
2242(a) (8 U.S.C. § 1231 note) ("It shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect
the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person
would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United
States.").
3
AR541
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 3 of 175
INA), or would more likely than not be tortured, if so returned pending removal proceedings.
The United States expects that the Government of Mexico will comply with the commitments
articulated in its statement of December 20, 2018.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement will issue appropriate internal procedural guidance to
carry out the policy set forth in this memorandum. 5
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
5 A OHS immigration officer, when processing an alien for Section 235(b)(2)(C), should refer to USCIS any alien
who has expressed a fear of return to Mexico for a non-refoulement assessment by an asylum officer.
4
AR542
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 4 of 175
MPP Guiding Principles
Date:
January 28, 2019
Topic:
Guiding Principles for Migrant Protection Protocols
HQ POC/Office:
Enforcement Programs Division
• Effective January 28, 2019, in accordance with the Commissioner’s Memorandum of January
28, 2019, the Office of Field Operations, San Diego Field Office, will, consistent with its
existing discretion and authorities, begin to implement Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) through the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP).
• To implement the MPP, aliens arriving from Mexico who are amenable to the
process (see below), and who in an exercise of discretion the officer determines
should be subject to the MPP process, will be issued an Notice to Appear (NTA)
and placed into Section 240 removal proceedings. They will then be transferred
to await proceedings in Mexico.
• Aliens in the following categories are not amenable to MPP:
• Unaccompanied alien children,
• Citizens or nationals of Mexico,
• Aliens processed for expedited removal,
• Aliens in special circumstances:
Returning LPRs seeking admission (subject to INA section 212)
Aliens with an advance parole document or in parole status
Known physical/mental health issues
Criminals/history of violence
Government of Mexico or USG interest,
• Any alien who is more likely than not to face persecution or torture in Mexico, or
• Other aliens at the discretion of the Port Director
• Nothing in this guidance changes existing policies and procedures for processing an alien
under procedures other than MPP, except as specifically provided. Thus, for instance, the
processing of aliens for expedited removal is unchanged. Once an alien has been processed
for expedited removal, including the supervisor approval, the alien may not be processed for
MPP.
• Officers, with appropriate supervisory review, retain discretion to process aliens for MPP or
under other procedures (e.g., expedited removal), on a case-by-case basis. Adverse factors
precluding placement in the MPP process include, but are not limited to, factors such as prior
removal, criminal history, it is more likely than not that the alien will face persecution or
torture in Mexico, and permanent bars to readmission.
• If an alien who is potentially amenable to MPP affirmatively states that he or she has a fear
of persecution or torture in Mexico, or a fear of return to Mexico, whether before or after
they are processed for MPP or other disposition, that alien will be referred to a USCIS
asylum officer for screening following the affirmative statement of fear of persecution or
AR543
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 5 of 175
torture in, or return to, Mexico, so that the asylum officer can assess whether it is more likely
than not that the alien will face persecution or torture if returned to Mexico.
• If USCIS assesses that an alien who affirmatively states a fear of return to Mexico is more
likely than not to face persecution or torture in Mexico, the alien may not be processed for
MPP. Officers retain all existing discretion to process (or re-process) the alien for any other
available disposition, including expedited removal, NTA, waivers, or parole.
• Aliens at the POE who are processed for MPP will receive a specific immigration court
hearing date and time. Every effort will be made to schedule similar MPP alien populations
(e.g. single adult males, single adult females, family units) for the same hearing dates.
• OFO and USBP will be sharing court dates using only one existing Immigration Scheduling
System (ISS) queue.
•
Any alien who is subject to MPP will be documented in the appropriate system of records,
SIGMA, and the proper code will be added.
• POEs will provide aliens subject to MPP a tear sheet containing information about the
process, as well as a list of free or low-cost legal service providers.
• Aliens who return to the POE for their scheduled hearing and affirmatively state a fear of
return to Mexico will be referred to USCIS for screening prior to any return to Mexico. If
USCIS assesses that such an alien is more likely than not to face persecution or torture in
Mexico, CBP Officers should coordinate with ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations
(ERO) to determine whether the alien may be maintained in custody or paroled, or if another
disposition is appropriate. Such an alien may not be subject to expedited removal, however,
and may not be returned to Mexico to await further proceedings.
Hearing date and processing
• POEs will establish scheduling for the arrival of aliens returning for their hearing to permit
efficient transportation, according to applicable policy.
• Returning aliens who arrive at the POEs for proceedings will be biometrically identified,
screened to ensure they have requisite documents, and turned over to ICE ERO.
• POEs will coordinate with ICE ERO to establish transfer of custody and expeditious
transportation from the POE to the hearing. ERO is responsible for the transportation of
aliens between the POE and court location, as well as the handling of the alien during all
court proceedings.
• If the alien receives a final order of removal from an immigration judge, the alien will be
processed in accordance with ERO operations.
• If the alien’s INA section 240 removal proceedings are ongoing ERO will transport the alien
back to the POE and CBP officers will escort the alien to the United States/Mexico limit line.
AR544
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 6 of 175
AR545
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 7 of 175
AR546
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 8 of 175
Policy Number: 11088.1
FEA Number: 306-112-002b
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 12, 2019
Office of the Director
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
500 12th Street SW
Washington. DC 20536
U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement
Implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols
On January 25, 2019, Secretary Nielsen issued a memorandum entitled Policy Guidance for
Implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols, in which she provided guidance for the
implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) announced on December 20, 2018, an
arrangement between the United States and Mexico to address the migration crisis along our
southern border. Pursuant to the Secretary's direction, this memorandum provides guidance to
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about its role in the implementation of the
MPP.
Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), in its discretion, with regard to certain aliens who are "arriving on
land (whether or not at a designated port of arrival) from a foreign territory contiguous to the
United States, ... [to] return the alien[s] to that territory pending a proceeding under
[INA] section 240." Consistent with the MPP, third-country nationals (i.e., aliens who are not
citizens or nationals of Mexico) who are arriving in the United States by land from Mexico
may be returned to Mexico pursuant to INA section 235(b)(2)(C) for the duration of their INA
section 240 removal proceedings. DHS will not use the INA section 235(b)(2)(C) process in the
cases of unaccompanied alien children, aliens placed into the expedited removal (ER) process of
INA section 235(b )(1 ), and other aliens determined, in the exercise of discretion, not to be
appropriate for such processing (which may include certain aliens with criminal histories,
individuals determined to be of interest to either Mexico or the United States, and lawful
permanent residents of the United States).
The direct placement of an alien into INA section 240 removal proceedings (and, in DHS 's
discretion, returning the alien to Mexico pursuant to INA section 235(b)(2)(C) pending those
proceedings) is a separate and distinct process from ER. Processing determinations, including
whether to place an alien into ER or INA section 240 proceedings (and, as applicable, to return
an alien placed into INA section 240 proceedings to Mexico under INA section 235(b)(2)(C) as
www.ice.gov
AR547
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 9 of 175
part of MPP), or to apply another processing disposition, will be made by U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), in CBP’s enforcement discretion.
MPP implementation began at the San Ysidro port of entry on or about January 28, 2019, and it
is intended that MPP implementation will expand eventually across the southern border. In
support of MPP, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) will provide appropriate
transportation when necessary, for aliens returned to Mexico under the MPP, from the designated
port of entry to the court facility for the scheduled removal hearings before an immigration judge
and back to the port of entry for return to Mexico by CBP after such hearings. ERO also will be
responsible for effectuating removal orders entered against aliens previously processed under
INA section 235(b)(2)(C), including post-removal order detention. ICE attorneys will represent
DHS in the related removal proceedings pursuant to 6 U.S.C. § 252(c).
As instructed by the Secretary, in exercising prosecutorial discretion concerning the potential
return of third-country nationals to Mexico under INA section 235(b)(2)(C), DHS officials
should act consistently with the non-refoulement principles contained in Article 33 of the 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Specifically, a third-country
national who affirmatively states a fear of return to Mexico (including while in the United States
to attend a removal hearing) should not be involuntarily returned under INA section 235(b)(2)(C)
if the alien would more likely than not be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion (unless described in INA section
241(b)(3)(B) as having engaged in certain criminal, persecutory, or terrorist activity), or would
more likely than not be tortured, if so returned pending removal proceedings. Non-refoulement
assessments will be made by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum in
accordance with guidance issued by the Director of USCIS.
Within ten (10) days after this memorandum, relevant ICE program offices are directed to issue
further guidance to ensure that MPP is implemented in accordance with the Secretary’s
memorandum, this memorandum, and policy guidance and procedures, in accordance with
applicable law.
This document provides internal ICE policy guidance, which may be modified, rescinded, or
superseded at any time without notice. This memorandum is not intended to, and does not,
create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party
against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents,
or any other person. Likewise, no limitations are placed by this guidance on the otherwise lawful
enforcement or litigative prerogatives of DHS.
Attachment:
DHS Secretary Memorandum, Policy Guidance for Implementation of Migrant Protection
Protocols, dated January 25, 2019.
AR548
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 10 of 175
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Purpose
February 12, 2019
Field Office Directors
£11force111e111 and Removal Operations
.S. Department of Homeland Security
500 12th Street. SW
Washington. D.C. 20536
Enforcement and Removal Operations
Nathalie R. Asher r(~ r'f?. fok_
Acting Executive Associate Director
Migrant Protection Protocols Guidance
This memorandum provides operational guidance to impacted Enforcement and Removal
Operations (ERO) field offices to ensure that the Migrant Prote_ction Protocols (MPP) are
implemented in accordance with applicable law, the Secretary's January 25, 2019, memorandum,
Policy Guidance for Implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols, Acting Director
Vitiello's February 12, 2019, memorandum of the same title, and other applicable policies and
procedures.
Background
On January 25, 2019, Secretary Nielsen issued a memorandum entitled Policy Guidance for
Implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols, in which she provided guidance for the
implementation of the MPP, an arrangement between the United States and Mexico to address
the migration crisis along our southern border announced on December 20, 2018. Thereafter, on
February 12, 2019, Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director
Vitiello issued U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Policy Memorandum 11088.1,
Implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols, announcing that operational
implementation of MPP began at the San Ysidro port of entry on or about January 28, 2019, and
directing that ICE program offices issue further guidance to ensure that the MPP is implemented
in accordance with the Secretary's memorandum, applicable law, and policy guidance and
procedures.
Discussion
Under section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security (OHS) may, in its discretion, with regard to certain applicants for
admission who are "arriving on land (whether or not at a designated port of arrival) from a
foreign territory contiguous to the United States, ... return the alien[s] to that territory pending a
proceeding under [INA section] 240."
AR549
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 11 of 175
return the alien to Mexico pending removal proceedings pursuant to section 235(b)(2)(C) of the
INA, as detailed in ICE Policy Memorandum 11088.1. Aliens processed under the MPP will be
issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) by CBP and returned by CBP to Mexico to await their removal
proceedings.
Aliens returned to Mexico under the MPP pursuant to section 235(b)(2)(C) of the INA will be
required to report to a designated POE on their scheduled hearing dates and will be paroled into
the United States by CBP for purposes of their hearings. As further explained in the next
section, CBP will then transfer the aliens to ERO custody for transportation to designated
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) court locations for their hearings.
If the alien is granted relief or protection from removal by the immigration judge or is ordered
removed from the United States, and appeal is not reserved by either party, the alien will be
processed in accordance with standard procedures applicable to final order cases. If the
immigration judge continues proceedings or enters an order upon which either party reserves
appeal, ERO will transport the alien back to the POE, whereupon CBP officers will take custody
of the alien to return the alien to Mexico to await further proceedings.
MPP implementation began at the San Ysidro port of entry (POE) on or about January 28, 2019,
and it is intended that MPP implementation will expand to additional locations along the
southern border. This memorandum provides general procedural guidance applicable to ERO
personnel in the implementation of the MPP. Field Office Directors should each assign a lead
POC for MPP issues arising within their AORs and issue local operational guidance applicable to
their individual areas of responsibility as the MPP is phased in.
Hearing Transportation and Custody
Before returning an alien to Mexico under the MPP to await his or her removal proceedings,
CBP will provide the alien instructions explaining when and to which POE to report to attend his
or her hearing. On the day of the hearing, an alien returned to Mexico under the MPP will arrive
at the POE at the time designated—generally, a time sufficient to allow for CBP processing, pre-
hearing consultation with counsel (if applicable), and timely appearance at hearings. Once CBP
conducts POE processing (including verification of identity and a brief medical screening), for
hearings set at immigration courts located in the interior of the United States, CBP will parole
the alien into ICE’s custody under INA section 212(d)(5)(A), and ERO will maintain physical
custody of the alien during transportation of the alien from the POE to the designated
immigration court location, making appropriate use of contract support and complying with
applicable requirements concerning the transportation of aliens.
In cases in which ICE performs that transportation function between the POE and an inland
immigration court, the alien is detained in ICE custody as an arriving alien.1 ERO should
coordinate locally with CBP officials at POEs where the MPP has been implemented, so that the
1 Aliens participating in the MPP who CBP initially encounters at a POE are “arriving aliens” within the meaning of
8 C.F.R. §§ 1.2 and 1001.1(q) (defining “arriving alien” to include “an applicant for admission coming … into the
United States at a port-of-entry”). Moreover, on their hearing dates before an immigration judge, aliens who CBP
initially encountered between the POEs will come to a POE to attend their hearings, placing them within the
“arriving alien” definition, as well.
AR550
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 12 of 175
daily volume of MPP cases can be monitored and any transportation needs may be properly met.
ERO should also coordinate locally with EOIR concerning security arrangements at the
immigration court location. While EOIR is responsible for security inside the courtroom, and
ERO should generally defer to immigration judges’ wishes concerning their presence in the
courtroom, DHS is ultimately responsible for maintaining custody of the alien. If an alien is
ordered released by an immigration judge, ERO should coordinate closely with the ICE Office of
the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) regarding how to proceed with the case. After an alien’s
removal hearing is over, ERO will transport him or her back to the POE for return to Mexico or
to retrieve property, as applicable. If the alien has received a final grant of relief or an
administratively final order of removal, ERO will coordinate with CBP and make appropriate
custody determinations.
Access to Counsel
Section 240(b)(4)(A) of the INA provides that an alien in removal proceedings before an
immigration judge “shall have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the
Government, by counsel of the alien’s choosing who is authorized to practice in such
proceedings.” Similarly, section 292 provides that “[i]n any removal proceedings . . . the person
concerned shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by
such counsel . . . as he shall choose.” Accordingly, in order to facilitate access to counsel for
aliens subject to return to Mexico under the MPP who will be transported to their immigration
court hearings by ERO, ERO will depart from the POE with the alien at a time sufficient to
ensure arrival at the immigration court not later than one hour before his or her scheduled
hearing time in order to afford the alien the opportunity to meet in-person with his or her legal
representative.
Non-Refoulement Considerations
In accordance with Secretary Nielsen’s January 25, 2019, memorandum, DHS should implement
the MPP consistent with the non-refoulement principles contained in Article 33 of the 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Convention) and Article 3 of the
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(CAT). Specifically, an alien should not be involuntarily returned to Mexico under the MPP if
the alien would more likely than not be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion (unless such alien has engaged in
criminal, persecutory, or terrorist activity described in section 241(b)(3)(B) of the INA), or
would more likely than not be tortured, if so returned pending removal proceedings.
If an alien subject to the MPP affirmatively states to an ERO officer that he or she has a fear of
persecution or torture in Mexico, or a fear of return to Mexico, at any point while in ERO
custody, ERO will notify CBP of the alien’s affirmative statement so that CBP officials at the
POE may refer the alien to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum officer
for screening before any return to Mexico to assess whether it is more likely than not that the
alien will face persecution or torture if returned to Mexico in accordance with guidance issued by
the Director of USCIS.
AR551
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 13 of 175
If USCIS assesses that such an alien is more likely than not to face persecution or torture in
Mexico, ERO will determine whether the alien may be maintained in custody or paroled, or if
another disposition is appropriate. Such an alien may not be subject to expedited removal;
however, and may not be returned to Mexico to await further proceedings.2
Recordkeeping and Reporting
MPP aliens booked in and out of ICE custody must be appropriately documented in the Enforce
Alien Detention Module (EADM) and monitored per a final Form I-216, Record of Person and
Property Transfer. For MPP aliens booked into ICE custody, the comment “out to court
pursuant to MPP,” must be added to the comments section of EADM.
EADM records for MPP aliens booked out of ICE custody will need to reflect the appropriate
court dispositions. Comments in EADM should reflect “MPP, Returned to the POE for Future
Hearing;” “MPP, Granted Relief, Released from Custody;” “MPP, Claimed Fear of Mexico,
returned to the POE;” or “MPP, Ordered Removed,” or similar comments indicating an MPP
disposition as appropriate.
Disclaimers
Except as specifically provided in relation to the MPP, existing policies and procedures for
processing and removing aliens remain unchanged. That applies to record-keeping
responsibilities as well as removal authority and responsibility. The MPP does not change
ERO’s removal operations, and removable aliens will be processed in accordance with standard
practices and procedures.
This document is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Likewise, this guidance places no limitations on the otherwise lawful enforcement or litigative
prerogatives of DHS.
2 In MPP cases where an immigration judge grants withholding or deferral of removal to Mexico and appeal is
reserved, ERO should confer with OPLA about appropriate next steps prior to any return under INA section
235(b)(2)(C).
AR552
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 14 of 175
January 28, 2019
PM-602-0169
Policy Memorandum
SUBJECT:
Guidance for Implementing Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act and the Migrant Protection Protocols
Purpose
This memorandum provides guidance to immigration officers in U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) regarding the implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols
(MPP), including supporting the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP). This memorandum follows the Secretary of Homeland Security’s January 25,
2019, memorandum, Policy Guidance for Implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols.
Background
Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that aliens arriving
by land from a foreign contiguous territory (i.e., Mexico or Canada)—whether or not at a
designated port of entry—generally may be returned, as a matter of enforcement discretion, to
the territory from which they are arriving pending a removal proceeding under Section 240 of the
INA.
On December 20, 2018, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen M. Nielsen announced that the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will begin the process of implementing Section
235(b)(2)(C) of the INA on a large scale. That statutory provision allows for the return of certain
aliens to a contiguous territory pending Section 240 removal proceedings before an immigration
judge. Under the MPP, aliens who are nationals and citizens of countries other than Mexico
(third-country nationals) arriving in the United States by land from Mexico—illegally or without
proper documentation—may be returned to Mexico for the duration of their immigration
proceedings as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. Accord 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(d).
In her January 25, 2019, memorandum, Secretary Nielsen issued general policy guidance
concerning DHS’s implementation of Section 235(b)(2)(C) at the southern border consistent with
the MPP. Memorandum from Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, Policy
DHS siganture
AR553
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 15 of 175
Guidance for Implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (Jan. 25, 2019) (Jan. 25, 2019,
Memorandum). The Secretary advised that such authority should be implemented consistent
with the non-refoulement principles contained in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to
the Status of Refugees (1951 Convention)—as incorporated in the 1967 Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees1—and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).2
The Secretary specifically advised that, consistent with those principles, “a third-country national
should not be involuntarily returned to Mexico pursuant to Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the INA if
the alien would more likely than not be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion (unless such alien has engaged in
criminal, persecutory, or terrorist activity described in Section 241(b)(3)(B) of the INA), or
would more likely than not be tortured, if so returned pending removal proceedings.” Jan. 25,
2019, Memorandum at 3-4. Article 33 of the 1951 Convention and Article 3 of the CAT require
that the individual demonstrate that he or she is “more likely than not” to face persecution on
account of a protected ground or torture, respectively.3 That is the same standard used for
withholding of removal and CAT protection determinations. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2), (c)(2);
Regulations Concerning the Convention Against Torture, 64 Fed. Reg. 8478, 8480 (1999).
At the same time, under the MPP, the United States “understands that, according to the Mexican
law of migration, the Government of Mexico will afford such individuals all legal and procedural
protection[s] provided for under applicable domestic and international law,” including the 1951
Convention and the CAT. Letter from Chargé d’Affaires John S. Creamer to Sr. Jesús Seade,
Subsecretaría para América del Norte, Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (Dec. 20, 2018).
Further, “[t]he United States expects that the Government of Mexico will comply with the
commitments articulated in its statement of December 20, 2018.”4
1 The United States is not a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees but is a party to the
1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which incorporates Articles 2 to 34 of the 1951 Convention.
Article 33 of the 1951 Convention provides that: “[n]o Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee
in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of
his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
2 Article 3 of the CAT states, “No State Party shall expel, return (‘refouler’) or extradite a person to another State
where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” See also
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA), Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. G, Title XXII, §
2242(a) (8 U.S.C. § 1231 note) (“It shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect
the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person
would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United
States.”).
3 See INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 132-33 (3d Cir. 2005); Pierre v.
Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109, 115 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Senate Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification of the
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, S. Treaty Doc. No.
100-20, II(2), available at https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/100th-congress/20/resolution-text;
Regulations Concerning the Convention Against Torture, 64 Fed. Reg. 8478, 8480 (1999).
4 Jan. 25, 2019, Memorandum at 4.
AR554
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 16 of 175
The Secretary also advised that, where an alien affirmatively states a concern that he or she may
face a risk of persecution on account of a protected ground or torture upon return to Mexico,
CBP should refer the alien to USCIS, which will conduct an assessment to determine whether it
is more likely than not that the alien will be subject to persecution or torture if returned to
Mexico. The Secretary directed USCIS to issue appropriate internal procedural guidance to
carry out this policy. That guidance is explained below.
Guidance
Upon a referral by a DHS immigration officer of an alien who could potentially be amenable to
the MPP, the USCIS asylum officer should interview the alien to assess whether it is more likely
than not that the alien would be persecuted in Mexico on account of his or her race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion (unless such alien has
engaged in criminal, persecutory, or terrorist activity described in Section 241(b)(3)(B) of the
INA),5 or that the alien would be tortured in Mexico. The process or procedures described in
INA Sections 208, 235(b)(1), (3), and 241(b)(3) and their implementing regulations, as well as
those in the CAT regulations, do not apply to the MPP assessments.
A. Interview
Upon receipt of such a referral, the USCIS officer should conduct the MPP assessment interview
in a non-adversarial manner, separate and apart from the general public. The purpose of the
interview is to elicit all relevant and useful information bearing on whether the alien would more
likely than not face persecution on account of a protected ground, or torture, if the alien is
returned to Mexico pending the conclusion of the alien’s Section 240 immigration proceedings.
The officer should conduct the assessment in person, via video teleconference, or telephonically.
At the time of the interview, the USCIS officer should verify that the alien understands that he or
she may be subject to return to Mexico under Section 235(b)(2)(C) pending his or her
immigration proceedings. The officer should also confirm that the alien has an understanding of
the interview process. In addition, provided the MPP assessments are part of either primary or
secondary inspection, DHS is currently unable to provide access to counsel during the
assessments given the limited capacity and resources at ports-of-entry and Border Patrol stations
as well as the need for the orderly and efficient processing of individuals.6
In conducting the interview, the USCIS officer should take into account the following and other
such relevant factors as:
5 The disqualifying grounds for non-refoulement vis-à-vis the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol are reflected in
Section 241(b)(3)(B) of the INA. However, the reference to Section 241(b)(3)(B) should not be construed to
suggest that Section 241(b)(3)(B) applies to MPP.
6 See 8 C.F.R. § 292.5(b).
AR555
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 17 of 175
1. The credibility of any statements made by the alien in support of the alien’s claim(s) and
such other facts as are known to the officer. That includes whether any alleged harm
(i.e., the alleged persecution or torture) could occur in the region in which the alien would
reside in Mexico, pending their removal proceedings, or whether residing in another
region of Mexico to which the alien would have reasonable access could mitigate against
the alleged harm;
2. Commitments from the Government of Mexico regarding the treatment and protection of
aliens returned under Section 235(b)(2)(C) (including those set forth in the Government
of Mexico’s statement of December 20, 2018),7 the expectation of the United States
Government that the Government of Mexico will comply with such commitments,8 and
reliable assessments of current country conditions in Mexico (especially those provided
by DHS and the U.S. Department of State); and
3. Whether the alien has engaged in criminal, persecutory, or terrorist activity described in
Section 241(b)(3)(B) of the INA.
B. Assessment
Once a USCIS officer assesses whether the alien, if returned to Mexico, would be more likely
than not persecuted in Mexico on account of a protected ground (or has engaged in criminal,
persecutory, or terrorist activity described in Section 241(b)(3)(B) of the INA), or would be more
likely than not tortured in Mexico, the assessment shall be reviewed by a supervisory asylum
officer, who may change or concur with the assessment’s conclusion. DHS staff should inform
the alien of the outcome of the final assessment. USCIS should then provide its assessment to
CBP for purposes of exercising prosecutorial discretion in connection with one or more of the
decisions as to whether to place the alien in expedited removal or to issue a Notice to Appear for
the purpose of placement directly into Section 240 removal proceedings, and if the latter,
whether to return the alien to Mexico pending the conclusion of Section 240 proceedings under
Section 235(b)(2)(C) pursuant to the MPP, and, when appropriate, to U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement for purposes of making discretionary custody determinations for aliens
who are subject to detention and may be taken into custody pending removal proceedings.
If an officer makes a positive MPP assessment (i.e., that an alien is more likely than not either to
be persecuted in Mexico on account of a protected ground and has not engaged in criminal,
persecutory, or terrorist activity described in Section 241(b)(3)(B) of the INA, or to be tortured
in Mexico), USCIS is not granting withholding of removal or protection from removal under the
CAT regulations. Nor shall there be further administrative review, reopening, or reconsideration
of the assessment by USCIS. The purpose of the assessment is simply to assess whether the
alien meets one of the eligibility criteria under the MPP, pursuant to Section 235(b)(2)(C).
7 Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Position of Mexico on the Decision of the U.S. Government to Invoke Section
235(b)(2)(C) of its Immigration and Nationality Act (Dec. 20, 2018); see Jan. 25, 2019, Memorandum at 2-3.
8 See Jan. 25, 2019, Memorandum at 4.
AR556
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 18 of 175
Disclaimer
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Likewise, no limitations are placed by this guidance on the otherwise lawful enforcement or
litigation prerogatives of DHS.
Contact Information
Questions relating to this memorandum must be directed through the appropriate channels to the
Asylum Division Headquarters point of contact.
AR557
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 19 of 175
Data Generated: April 23, 2019
1 Initial receipts equals removal, deportation, exclusions, asylum-only, and withholding only cases.
2 Total completions equals initial case completions plus subsequent case completions.
3 FY 2019 Second Quarter through March 31, 2019.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
ADJUDICATION STATISTICS
New Cases and Total Completions
Fiscal Year
Initial Receipts1
Average
Initial Receipts
per Month
Total Completions2
Average
Total Completions
per Month
1983
5,754
480
902
75
1984
11,517
960
2,118
177
1985
24,423
2,035
9,459
788
1986
37,911
3,159
27,223
2,269
1987
39,858
3,322
37,841
3,153
1988
67,212
5,601
60,104
5,009
1989
112,282
9,357
72,939
6,078
1990
103,429
8,619
81,678
6,807
1991
93,773
7,814
101,785
8,482
1992
88,998
7,417
87,322
7,277
1993
106,590
8,883
89,762
7,480
1994
125,711
10,476
106,815
8,901
1995
159,300
13,275
140,757
11,730
1996
197,449
16,454
186,002
15,500
1997
211,885
17,657
196,277
16,356
1998
184,076
15,340
191,981
15,998
1999
162,493
13,541
174,553
14,546
2000
159,865
13,322
165,734
13,811
2001
176,111
14,676
160,946
13,412
2002
178,528
14,877
171,413
14,284
2003
193,002
16,084
200,068
16,672
2004
199,485
16,624
212,145
17,679
2005
271,631
22,636
270,446
22,537
2006
246,489
20,541
279,411
23,284
2007
213,379
17,782
223,967
18,664
2008
225,871
18,823
230,595
19,216
2009
255,034
21,253
232,676
19,390
2010
247,178
20,598
223,350
18,613
2011
238,142
19,845
220,016
18,335
2012
212,932
17,744
186,759
15,563
2013
196,620
16,385
156,573
13,048
2014
230,175
19,181
142,121
11,843
2015
192,994
16,083
143,719
11,977
2016
228,442
19,037
143,507
11,959
2017
295,127
24,594
163,171
13,598
2018
314,316
26,193
195,670
16,306
2019 (Second
Quarter)3
180,400
30,067
111,555
18,593
AR558
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 20 of 175
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
ADJUDICATION STATISTICS
New Cases and Total Completions
Total Completions
Initial Receipts
Data Generated: April 23, 2019
1 Initial receipts equals removal, deportation, exclusions, asylum-only, and withholding only cases.
2 Total completions equals initial case completions plus subsequent case completions.
3 FY 2019 Second Quarter through March 31, 2019.
AR559
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 21 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 1
2. CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES
Geneva, 28 July 1951
.ENTRY INTO FORCE:
22 April 1954, in accordance with article 43.
REGISTRATION:
22 April 1954, No. 2545.
STATUS:
Signatories: 19. Parties: 146.
TEXT:
United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 189, p. 137.
Note: The Convention was adopted by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and
Stateless Persons, held at Geneva from 2 to 25 July 1951. The Conference was convened pursuant to resolution 429 (V)1,
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1950.
.
Participant
Signature
Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
Afghanistan....................
30 Aug 2005 a
Albania...........................
18 Aug 1992 a
Algeria ...........................
21 Feb
1963 d
Angola ...........................
23 Jun
1981 a
Antigua and Barbuda.....
7 Sep
1995 a
Argentina .......................
15 Nov 1961 a
Armenia .........................
6 Jul
1993 a
Australia.........................
22 Jan
1954 a
Austria ...........................28 Jul
1951
1 Nov 1954
Azerbaijan......................
12 Feb
1993 a
Bahamas.........................
15 Sep
1993 a
Belarus...........................
23 Aug 2001 a
Belgium .........................28 Jul
1951
22 Jul
1953
Belize.............................
27 Jun
1990 a
Benin..............................
4 Apr 1962 d
Bolivia (Plurinational
State of)....................
9 Feb
1982 a
Bosnia and
Herzegovina2............
1 Sep
1993 d
Botswana .......................
6 Jan
1969 a
Brazil .............................15 Jul
1952
16 Nov 1960
Bulgaria .........................
12 May 1993 a
Burkina Faso..................
18 Jun
1980 a
Burundi..........................
19 Jul
1963 a
Cambodia.......................
15 Oct
1992 a
Cameroon.......................
23 Oct
1961 d
Canada ...........................
4 Jun
1969 a
Central African
Republic...................
4 Sep
1962 d
Chad...............................
19 Aug 1981 a
Chile...............................
28 Jan
1972 a
Participant
Signature
Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
China3 ............................
24 Sep
1982 a
Colombia .......................28 Jul
1951
10 Oct
1961
Congo.............................
15 Oct
1962 d
Costa Rica......................
28 Mar 1978 a
Côte d'Ivoire ..................
8 Dec 1961 d
Croatia2 ..........................
12 Oct
1992 d
Cyprus............................
16 May 1963 d
Czech Republic4 ............
11 May 1993 d
Democratic Republic of
the Congo.................
19 Jul
1965 a
Denmark ........................28 Jul
1951
4 Dec 1952
Djibouti..........................
9 Aug 1977 d
Dominica .......................
17 Feb
1994 a
Dominican Republic......
4 Jan
1978 a
Ecuador..........................
17 Aug 1955 a
Egypt..............................
22 May 1981 a
El Salvador ....................
28 Apr 1983 a
Equatorial Guinea..........
7 Feb
1986 a
Estonia ...........................
10 Apr 1997 a
Eswatini .........................
14 Feb
2000 a
Ethiopia..........................
10 Nov 1969 a
Fiji .................................
12 Jun
1972 d
Finland...........................
10 Oct
1968 a
France ............................11 Sep
1952
23 Jun
1954
Gabon.............................
27 Apr 1964 a
Gambia...........................
7 Sep
1966 d
Georgia ..........................
9 Aug 1999 a
Germany5,6.....................19 Nov 1951
1 Dec 1953
Ghana.............................
18 Mar 1963 a
Greece............................10 Apr 1952
5 Apr 1960
Guatemala......................
22 Sep
1983 a
AR560
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 22 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 2
Participant
Signature
Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
Guinea............................
28 Dec 1965 d
Guinea-Bissau................
11 Feb
1976 a
Haiti ...............................
25 Sep
1984 a
Holy See ........................21 May 1952
15 Mar 1956
Honduras........................
23 Mar 1992 a
Hungary .........................
14 Mar 1989 a
Iceland ...........................
30 Nov 1955 a
Iran (Islamic Republic
of).............................
28 Jul
1976 a
Ireland............................
29 Nov 1956 a
Israel .............................. 1 Aug 1951
1 Oct
1954
Italy................................23 Jul
1952
15 Nov 1954
Jamaica ..........................
30 Jul
1964 d
Japan..............................
3 Oct
1981 a
Kazakhstan.....................
15 Jan
1999 a
Kenya.............................
16 May 1966 a
Kyrgyzstan.....................
8 Oct
1996 a
Latvia.............................
31 Jul
1997 a
Lesotho ..........................
14 May 1981 a
Liberia............................
15 Oct
1964 a
Liechtenstein..................28 Jul
1951
8 Mar 1957
Lithuania........................
28 Apr 1997 a
Luxembourg...................28 Jul
1951
23 Jul
1953
Madagascar....................
18 Dec 1967 a
Malawi...........................
10 Dec 1987 a
Mali................................
2 Feb
1973 d
Malta..............................
17 Jun
1971 a
Mauritania......................
5 May 1987 a
Mexico...........................
7 Jun
2000 a
Monaco..........................
18 May 1954 a
Montenegro....................
10 Oct
2006 d
Morocco.........................
7 Nov 1956 d
Mozambique..................
16 Dec 1983 a
Namibia .........................
17 Feb
1995 a
Nauru .............................
28 Jun
2011 a
Netherlands....................28 Jul
1951
3 May 1956
New Zealand..................
30 Jun
1960 a
Nicaragua.......................
28 Mar 1980 a
Niger..............................
25 Aug 1961 d
Nigeria ...........................
23 Oct
1967 a
North Macedonia2..........
18 Jan
1994 d
Norway ..........................28 Jul
1951
23 Mar 1953
Panama...........................
2 Aug 1978 a
Papua New Guinea ........
17 Jul
1986 a
Participant
Signature
Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
Paraguay ........................
1 Apr 1970 a
Peru................................
21 Dec 1964 a
Philippines .....................
22 Jul
1981 a
Poland............................
27 Sep
1991 a
Portugal3 ........................
22 Dec 1960 a
Republic of Korea..........
3 Dec 1992 a
Republic of Moldova.....
31 Jan
2002 a
Romania.........................
7 Aug 1991 a
Russian Federation ........
2 Feb
1993 a
Rwanda..........................
3 Jan
1980 a
Samoa ............................
21 Sep
1988 a
Sao Tome and Principe..
1 Feb
1978 a
Senegal...........................
2 May 1963 d
Serbia2............................
12 Mar 2001 d
Seychelles......................
23 Apr 1980 a
Sierra Leone...................
22 May 1981 a
Slovakia4........................
4 Feb
1993 d
Slovenia2........................
6 Jul
1992 d
Solomon Islands ............
28 Feb
1995 a
Somalia..........................
10 Oct
1978 a
South Africa...................
12 Jan
1996 a
South Sudan...................
10 Dec 2018 a
Spain..............................
14 Aug 1978 a
St. Kitts and Nevis.........
1 Feb
2002 a
St. Vincent and the
Grenadines ...............
3 Nov 1993 a
Sudan .............................
22 Feb
1974 a
Suriname7.......................
29 Nov 1978 d
Sweden...........................28 Jul
1951
26 Oct
1954
Switzerland....................28 Jul
1951
21 Jan
1955
Tajikistan .......................
7 Dec 1993 a
Timor-Leste ...................
7 May 2003 a
Togo...............................
27 Feb
1962 d
Trinidad and Tobago .....
10 Nov 2000 a
Tunisia ...........................
24 Oct
1957 d
Turkey............................24 Aug 1951
30 Mar 1962
Turkmenistan.................
2 Mar 1998 a
Tuvalu8...........................
7 Mar 1986 d
Uganda...........................
27 Sep
1976 a
Ukraine9.........................
10 Jun
2002 a
United Kingdom of
Great Britain and
Northern Ireland.......28 Jul
1951
11 Mar 1954
United Republic of
Tanzania...................
12 May 1964 a
AR561
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 23 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 3
Participant
Signature
Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
Uruguay .........................
22 Sep
1970 a
Yemen10.........................
18 Jan
1980 a
Participant
Signature
Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
Zambia...........................
24 Sep
1969 d
Zimbabwe......................
25 Aug 1981 a
Declarations under section B of article 1 of the Convention (Unless otherwise indicated in a footnote, the
declarations were received upon ratification, accession or succession.)
(a) "Events occurring in Europe before 1 January 1951"
Participant
Congo
Madagascar
Monaco
Turkey
(b) "Events occurring in Europe or elsewhere before 1 January 1951"
Participant
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina11,12
Armenia
Australia12
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin12
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina2
Botswana13
Brazil12
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon12
Canada
AR562
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 24 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 4
Participant
Central African Republic12
Chad
Chile12
Colombia11,12
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire12
Croatia2
Cyprus
Czech Republic4
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador12
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France12
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany6
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Haiti
Holy See12
Honduras
Hungary11,12
Iceland
Iran (Islamic Republic of)12
Ireland
Israel
Italy12
Jamaica
Japan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan
AR563
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 25 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 5
Participant
Latvia11,12
Lesotho
Liberia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg12
Malawi14
Mali
Malta12
Mauritania
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nauru
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger12
Nigeria
Norway
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay11,12
Peru12
Philippines
Portugal12
Republic of Korea
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Samoa
Sao Tome and Principe
Senegal12
Serbia2
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Slovakia4
Slovenia2
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
South Sudan
Spain
AR564
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 26 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 6
Participant
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Sudan12
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Tajikistan
The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia2
Timor-Leste
Togo12
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
United Republic of Tanzania
Uruguay
Yemen10
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Declarations and Reservations
(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon ratification,
accession or succession.)
ANGOLA
The Government of the People's Republic of Angola
also declares that the provisions of the Convention shall
be applicable in Angola provided that they are not
contrary to or incompatible with the constitutional and
legal provisions in force in the People's Republic of
Angola, especially as regards articles 7, 13, 15, 18 and 24
of the Convention.
Those provisions shall not be
construed so as to accord to any category of aliens
resident in Angola more extensive rights than are enjoyed
by Angolan citizens.
The Government of the People's Republic of Angola
also considers that the provisions of articles 8 and 9 of the
Convention cannot be construed so as to limit its right to
adopt in respect of a refugee or group of refugees such
measures as it deems necessary to safeguard national
interests and to ensure respect for its sovereignty,
whenever circumstances so require.
In addition, the Government of the People’s Republic
of Angola wishes to make the following reservations:
Ad article 17: The Government of the People's
Republic of Angola accepts the obligations set forth in
article 17, provided that:
(a)
Paragraph 1 of this article shall not be interpreted
to mean that refugees must enjoy the same privileges as
may be accorded to nationals of countries with which the
People's Republic of Angola has signed special co-
operation agreements;
(b)
Paragraph 2 of this article shall be construed as a
recommendation and not as an obligation.
The Government of the People's Republic of Angola
reserves the right to prescribe, transfer or circumscribe the
place of residence of certain refugees or groups of
refugees, and to restrict their freedom of movement,
whenever considerations of national or international order
make it advisable to do so.
AUSTRALIA15
AUSTRIA16
The Convention is ratified:
(a)
Subject to the reservation that the Republic of
Austria regards the provisions of article 17, paragraphs 1
and 2 (excepting, however, the phrase "who was already
exempt from them at the date of entry into force of this
Convention for the Contracting State concerned, or . . ."
in the latter paragraph) not as a binding obligation, but
merely as a recommendation.
(b)
Subject to the reservation that the provisions of
article 22, paragraph 1, shall not be applicable to the
AR565
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 27 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 7
establishment and maintenance of private elementary
schools, that the "public relief and assistance" referred to
in article 23 shall be interpreted solely in the sense of
allocations from public welfare funds ( Armenversorgung)
, and that the "documents or certifications" referred to in
article 25, paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be construed to mean
the identity certificates provided for in the Convention of
30 June 1928 relating to refugees.
BAHAMAS
"Refugees and their dependants would normally be
subjected to the same laws and regulations relating
generally to the employment of non-Bahamians within the
Commonwealth of the Bahamas, so long as they have not
acquired status in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas."
BELGIUM
1.
In all cases where the Convention grants to
refugees the most favourable treatment accorded to
nationals of a foreign country, this provision shall not be
interpreted by the Belgian Government as necessarily
involving the régime accorded to nationals of countries
with which Belgium has concluded regional customs,
economic or political agreements.
2.
Article 15 of the Convention shall not be
applicable in Belgium; refugees lawfully staying in
Belgian territory will enjoy the same treatment, as regards
the right of association, as that accorded to aliens in
general.
BOTSWANA
"Subject to the reservation of articles 7, 17, 26, 31, 32
and 34 and paragraph 1 of article 12 of the Convention."
BRAZIL17
"Refugees will be granted the same treatment
accorded to nationals of foreign countries in general, with
the exception of the preferential treatment extended to
nationals of Portugal through the Friendship and
Consultation Treaty of 1953 and Article 199 of the
Brazilian Constitutional Amendment No.1, of 1969."
CANADA
“Subject to the following reservation with reference to
Articles 23 and 24 of the Convention:
"Canada interprets the phrase `lawfully staying' as
referring only to refugees admitted for permanent
residence: refugees admitted for temporary residence will
be accorded the same treatment with respect to the
matters dealt with in articles 23 and 24 as is accorded
visitors generally."
CHILE
(1)
With the reservation that, with reference to the
provisions of article 34, the Government of Chile will be
unable to grant to refugees facilities greater that those
granted to aliens in general, in view of the liberal nature
of Chilean naturalization laws;
(2)
With the reservation that the period specified in
article 17, paragraph 2 (a) shall, in the case of Chile, be
extended from three to ten years;
(3)
With the reservation that article 17, paragraph 2
(c) shall apply only if the refugee is the widow or the
widower of a Chilean spouse;
(4)
With the reservation that the Government of
Chile cannot grant a longer period for compliance with an
expulsion order than that granted to other aliens in general
under Chilean law.
CHINA
“[Subject to] reservations on the following articles:
(1).
The latter half of article 14, which reads
‘In the territory of any other Contracting State, he
shall be accorded the same protection as is accorded in
that territory to nationals of the country in which he has
his habitual residence.’
(2).
Article 16 (3).”
CYPRUS18
With confirmation of the reservations made by the
Government of the United Kingdom upon application of
the Convention to the territory of Cyprus.
DENMARK19
“[Subject to] the following reservation:
The obligation in article 17, paragraph 1, to accord to
refugees lawfully staying in Denmark the most favourable
treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country as
regards the right to engage in wage-earning employment
shall not be construed to mean that refugees shall be
entitled to the privileges which in this respect are
accorded to nationals of Finland, Iceland, Norway and
Sweden."
ECUADOR
[Subject
to]
the
following
declarations
and
reservation:
With respect to article 1, relating to the definition of
the term "refugee", the Government of Ecuador declares
that its accession to the Convention relating to the Status
of Refugees does not imply its acceptance of the
Conventions which have not been expressly signed and
ratified by Ecuador.
With respect to article 15, Ecuador further declares
that its acceptance of the provisions contained therein
shall be limited in so far as those provisions are in conflict
with the constitutional and statutory provisions in force
prohibiting aliens, and consequently refugees, from being
members of political bodies.
EGYPT
With reservations in respect of article 12 (1), articles
20 and 22 (1), and articles 23 and 24.
1.
Egypt formulated a reservation to article 12 (1)
because it is in contradiction with the internal laws of
Egypt. This article provides that the personal status of a
refugee shall be governed by the law of the country of his
domicile or, failing this, of his residence. This formula
contradicts article 25 of the Egyptian civil code, which
reads as follows:
"The judge declares the applicable law in the case of
persons without nationality or with more than one
nationality at the same time. In the case of persons where
there is proof, in accordance with Egypt, of Egyptian
nationality, and at the same time in accordance with one
or more foreign countries, of nationality of that country,
the Egyptian law must be applied."
The competent Egyptian authorities are not in a
position to amend this article (25) of the civil code.
2.
Concerning articles 20, 22 (paragraph 1), 23 and
24 of the Convention of 1951, the competent Egyptian
authorities had reservations because these articles
consider the refugee as equal to the national.
We made this general reservation to avoid any
obstacle which might affect the discretionary authority of
Egypt in granting privileges to refugees on a case-by-case
basis.
AR566
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 28 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 8
ESTONIA
“[Subject to the following] reservations ...:
1)
to Articles 23 and 24 as follows:
The Republic of Estonia considers articles 23 and 24
merely as recommendatory, not as legally binding.
2)
to Article 25 as follows:
The Republic of Estonia shall not be bound to cause a
certificate to be delivered by an Estonian authority, in
place of the authorities of a foreign country, if
documentary records necessary for the delivery of such a
certificate do not exist in the Republic of Estonia.
3)
to Article 28, paragraph 1 as follows:
The Republic of Estonia shall not be obliged within
five years from the entry into force of the present
Convention to issue travel documents provided in article
28.”
ETHIOPIA
“[S]ubject to the following reservations made under
the terms of Article 42, paragraph 1, of the Convention
and Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Protocol :
The provisions of articles 8, 9, 17 (2) and 22 (1) of the
Convention are recognized only as recommendations and
not as legally binding obligations."
FIJI
The Government of Fiji stated that “...[t]he first and
fourth reservations made by the United Kingdom are
affirmed but have been redrafted as more suitable to the
application of Fiji in the following terms:
1.
The Government of Fiji understands articles 8
and 9 as not preventing them from taking in time of war
or other grave and exceptional circumstances measures in
the interests of national security in the case of a refugee
on the ground of his nationality. The provisions of article
8 shall not prevent the Government of Fiji from
exercising any rights over property and interests which
they may acquire or have acquired as an Allied or
Associated Power under a Treaty of Peace or other
agreement or arrangement for the restoration of peace
which has been or may be completed as a result of the
Second World War. Furthermore the provisions of article
8 shall not affect the treatment to be accorded to any
property or interests which at the date of entry into force
of this Convention on behalf of Fiji were under the
control of the Government of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland or of the Government
of Fiji respectively by reason of a state of war which
existed between them and any other State.
2.
The Government of Fiji cannot undertake to give
effect to the obligations contained in paragraphs 1 and 2
of article 25 and can only undertake to apply the
provisions of paragraph 3 so far as the law allows.
Commentary:
No arrangements exist in Fiji for the administrative
assistance for which provision is made in article 25 nor
have any such arrangements been found necessary in the
case of refugees.
Any need for the documents or
certifications mentioned in paragraph 2 of that article
would be met by affidavits...
All other reservations made by the United Kingdom to
the above-mentioned [Convention are] withdrawn."
FINLAND20
“[S]ubject to the following reservations:
(1)
A general reservation to the effect that the
application of those provisions of the Convention which
grant to refugees the most favourable treatment accorded
to nationals of a foreign country shall not be affected by
the fact that special rights and privileges are now or may
in future be accorded by Finland to the nationals of
Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden or to the
nationals of any one of those Countries;
[...]
(5)
A reservation to article 24, paragraph 3 to the
effect that it shall not be binding on Finland;
[...]
FRANCE
In depositing its instrument of ratification, the
Government of the French Republic, acting in accordance
with article 42 of the Convention, makes the following
statements:
(a)
It considers that article 29, paragraph 2, does not
prevent the application in French territory of the
provisions of the Act of 7 May 1934 authorizing the
levying of the Nansen tax for the support of refugee
welfare, resettlement and relief work.
(b)
Article 17 in no way prevents the application of
the laws and regulations establishing the proportion of
alien workers that employers are authorized to employ in
France or affects the obligations of such employers in
connexion with the employment of alien workers.
GAMBIA21
GEORGIA
“According to the paragraph 1, article 40 of the [...]
Convention, before the full restoration of the territorial
integrity of Georgia, this Convention is applicable only to
the territory where the jurisdiction of Georgia is
exercised.”
GREECE22
“In cases or circumstances which, in its opinion,
would justify exceptional procedure for reasons of
national
security
or
public
order,
the
Hellenic
Government reserves the right to derogate from the
obligations imposed by the provisions of article 26.”
GUATEMALA23
HOLY SEE
The Holy See, in conformity with the terms of article
42, paragraph 1, of the Convention, makes the reservation
that the application of the Convention must be compatible
in practice with the special nature of the Vatican City
State and without prejudice to the norms governing access
to and sojourn therein.
HONDURAS24
(a)
With respect to article 7:
The Government of the Republic of Honduras
understands this article to mean that it shall accord to
refugees such facilities and treatment as it shall deem
appropriate at its discretion, taking into account the
economic, social, democratic and security needs of the
country;
(b)
With respect to article 17:
This article shall in no way be understood as limiting
the application of the labour and civil service laws of the
country, especially is so far as they refer to the
requirements, quotas and conditions of work which an
alien must fulfil in his employment;
(e)
With respect to article 34:
The Government of the Republic of Honduras shall
not be obligated to guarantee refugees more favourable
naturalization facilities than those ordinarily granted to
aliens in accordance with the laws of the country.
IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF)
Subject to the following reservations:
AR567
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 29 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 9
1.
In all cases where, under the provisions of this
Convention, refugees enjoy the most favourable treatment
accorded to nationals of a foreign State, the Government
of Iran reserves the right not to accord refugees the most
favourable treatment accorded to nationals of States with
which Iran has concluded regional establishment,
customs, economic or political agreements.
2.
The
Government
of
Iran
considers
the
stipulations contained in articles 17, 23, 24 and 26 as
being recommendations only.
IRELAND25
“[S]ubject
to
the
following
declarations
and
reservations:
...
2.
The Government of Ireland understands the
words `public order' in article 32 (1) and the words `in
accordance with due process of law' in article 32 (2) to
mean, respectively, `public policy' and `in accordance
with a procedure provided by law'.
3.
With regard to article 17 the Government of
Ireland do not undertake to grant to refugees rights of
wage-earning employment more favourable than those
granted to aliens generally.
4.
The Government of Ireland undertake to give
effect to article 25 only insofar as may be practicable and
permissible under the laws of Ireland.
5.
With regard to article 29 (1) the Government of
Ireland do not undertake to accord to refugees treatment
more favourable than that accorded to aliens generally
with respect to
. . .
(c)
Income Tax (including Surtax)."
ISRAEL
“[S]ubject
to
the
following
statements
and
reservations:
...
2.
Articles 8 and 12 shall not apply to Israel.
3.
Article 28 shall apply to Israel with the
limitations which result from Section 6 of the Passport
Law of 5712-1952, according to which the Minister may,
at his discretion:
(a)
Refuse to grant, or to extend the validity
of a passport or laissez-passer;
(b)
Attach conditions to the grant or the
extension of the validity of a passport or laissez-passer;
(c)
Cancel, or shorten the period of validity
of a passport or laissez-passer issued, and order the
surrender thereof;
(d)
Limit, either at or after the issue of a
passport or laissez-passer, the range of countries for
which it is to be valid.
4.
Permits provided for by Article 30 shall be
issued by the Minister of Finance at his discretion."
ITALY26
JAMAICA
"The Government of Jamaica confirms and maintains
the following reservations, which were made when the
Convention was extended to Jamaica by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:
(i)
The
Government
of
the
United
Kingdom understand articles 8 and 9 as not preventing the
taking by the above-mentioned territory, in time of war or
other grave and exceptional circumstances, of measures in
the interests of national security in the case of a refugee
on the ground of his nationality. The provisions of article
8 shall not prevent the Government of the United
Kingdom from exercising any rights over property or
interests which they may acquire or have acquired as an
Allied or Associated Power under a Treaty of Peace or
other agreement or arrangement for the restoration of
peace which has been or may be completed as a result of
the Second World War. Furthermore, the provisions of
article 8 shall not affect the treatment to be accorded to
any property or interests which, at the date of entry into
force of the Convention for the above-mentioned territory,
are under the control of the Government of the United
Kingdom by reason of a state of war which exists or
existed between them and any other State.
(ii)
The
Government
of
the
United
Kingdom accept paragraph 2 of article 17 in its
application to the above-mentioned territory with the
substitution of `four years' for `three years' in
subparagraph (a) and with the omission of subparagraph
(c).
(iii)
The
Government
of
the
United
Kingdom can only undertake that the provisions of
subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1 of article 24 and of
paragraph 2 of that article will be applied to the above-
mentioned territory so far as the law allows.
(iv)
The
Government
of
the
United
Kingdom cannot undertake that effect will be given in the
above-mentioned territory to paragraphs 1 and 2 of article
25 and can only undertake that the provisions of
paragraph 3 will be applied in the above-mentioned
territory so far as the law alows."
LATVIA
“Reservation
In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 42 of the
[said Convention], the Republic of Latvia declares that it
does not consider itself bound by the article 8 and the
article 34 of the Convention.
Reservation
In accordance with paragraph 1 of the article 42 of the
[said Convention], the Republic of Latvia, in respect of
the article 26 of the Convention, reserves the right to
designate the place or places of residence of the refugees
whenever considerations of national security or public
order so require.
Reservation
In accordance with paragraph 1of the article 42 of the
[said Convention], the Republic of Latvia declares that
the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the article 17 and
article
24
of
the
Convention
it
considers
as
recommendations and not legal obligations.
Reservation
In accordance with paragraph 1 of the article 42 of the
[said Convention], the Republic of Latvia declares that in
all cases where the Convention grants to refugees the
most favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a
foreign country, this provision shall not be interpreted by
the Government of the Republic of Latvia as necessarily
involving the regime accorded to nationals of countries
with which the Republic of Latvia had concluded regional
customs,
economic,
political
or
social
security
agreements."
LIECHTENSTEIN27
LUXEMBOURG
Subject to the following reservation: in all cases
where this Convention grants to refugees the most
favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign
country, this provision shall not be interpreted as
necessarily involving the régime accorded to nationals of
countries with which the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has concluded regional, customs, economic or political
agreements.
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg considers that the
reservation made by the Republic of Guatemala
concerning the Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol relating to the
Status of Refugee of 31 January 1967 does not affect the
AR568
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 30 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 10
obligations
of
Guatemala
deriving
from
those
instruments.
MADAGASCAR
The provisions of article 7 (1) shall not be interpreted
as requiring the same treatment as is accorded to nationals
of countries with which the Malagasy Republic has
concluded conventions of establishment or agreements on
co-operation;
The provisions of articles 8 and 9 shall not be
interpreted as forbidding the Malagasy Government to
take, in time of war or other grave and exceptional
circumstances, measures with regard to a refugee because
of his nationality in the interests of national security.
The provisions of article 17 cannot be interpreted as
preventing the application of the laws and regulations
establishing the proportion of alien workers that
employers are authorized to employ in Madagascar or
affecting the obligations of such employers in connexion
with the employment of alien workers.
MALAWI
“In respect of articles 7, 13, 15, 19, 22 and 24
The Government of the Republic of Malawi considers
these provisions as recommendations only and not legally
binding ob ligations.
In respect of article 17
The Government of the Republic of Malawi does not
consider itself bound to grant a refugee who fulfils any of
the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (a) to (c) to
paragraph (2) of article 17 automatic exemption for the
obligation to obtain a work permit.
In respect of article 17 as a whole, the Government of
the Republic of Malawi does not undertake to grant to
refugees rights of wage earning employment more
favourable than those granted to aliens generally.
In respect of article 26
The Government of the Republic of Malawi reserves
its right to designate the place or places of residence of
the refugees and to restrict their movements whenever
considerations of national security or public order so
require.
In respect of article 34
The Government of the Republic of Malawi is not
bound to grant to refugees any more favourable
naturalization facilities than are granted, in accordance
with the relevant laws and regulations, to aliens
generally."
MALTA28
MEXICO29
It will always be the task of the Government of
Mexico to determine and grant, in accordance with its
legal provisions in force, refugee status, without prejudice
to the definition of a refugee provided for under article 1
of the Convention and article 1 of its Protocol.
The Government of Mexico has the power to grant
refugees
greater
facilities
for
naturalization
and
assimilation than those accorded to aliens in general,
within the framework of its population policy and,
particularly, with regard to refugees, in accordance with
its national legislation.
The Government of Mexico is convinced of the
importance of ensuring that all refugees can obtain wage-
earning employment as a means of subsistence and
affirms that refugees will be treated, in accordance with
the law, under the same conditions as aliens in general,
including the laws and regulations which establish the
proportion of alien workers that employers are authorized
to employ in Mexico, and this will not affect the
obligations of employers with regard to the employment
of alien workers.
On the other hand, since the Government of Mexico is
unable to guarantee refugees who meet any of the
requirements referred to in article 17, paragraph 2 (a), (b)
and (c), of the Convention, the automatic extension of the
obligations for obtaining a work permit, it lodges an
express reservation to these provisions.
The Government of Mexico reserves the right to
assign, in accordance with its national legislation, the
place or places of residence of refugees and to establish
the conditions for moving within the national territory, for
which reason it lodges an express reservation to articles
26 and 31 (2) of the Convention.
MONACO
Subject to the reservation that the stipulations
contained in articles 7 (paragraph 2), 15, 22 (paragraph 1),
23 and 24 shall be provisionally considered as being
recommendations and not legal obligations.
MOZAMBIQUE
The Government of Mozambique will take these
provisions as simple recommendations not binding it to
accord to refugees the same treatment as is accorded to
Mozambicans with respect to elementary education and
property.
The Government of Mozambique will interpret [these
provisions] to the effect that it is not required to grant
privileges from obligation to obtain a work permit.
The Government of Mozambique will not be bound to
accord to refugees or groups of refugees resident in its
territory more extensive rights than those enjoyed by
nationals with respect to the right of association and it
reserves the right to restrict them in the interest of
national security.
The Government of Mozambique reserves its right to
designate place or places for principal residence for
refugees or to restrict their freedom of movement
whenever considerations of national security make it
advisable.
The Government of Mozambique does not consider
itself bound to grant to refugees facilities greater than
those granted to other categories of aliens in general, with
respect to naturalization laws."
NAMIBIA
“[S]ubject to the following reservation in respect of
article 26:
The Government of the Republic of Namibia reserves
the right to designate a place or places for principal
reception and residence for refugees or to restrict their
freedom of movement if consideration of national security
so required or make it advisable."
NETHERLANDS
This signature is appended subject to the reservation
that in all cases where this Convention grants to refugees
the most favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a
foreign country this provision shall not be interpreted as
involving the régime accorded to nationals of countries
with which the Netherlands has concluded regional,
customs, economic or political agreements.
(1)
With reference to article 26 of this Convention,
the Netherlands Government reserves the right to
designate a place of principal residence for certain
refugees or groups of refugees in the public interest.
(2)
In
the
notifications
concerning
overseas
territories referred to in article 40, paragraph 2, of this
Convention, the Netherlands Government reserves the
right to make a declaration in accordance with section B
of article 1 with respect to such territories and to make
reservations in accordance with article 42 of the
Convention.
AR569
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 31 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 11
In depositing the instrument of ratification by the
Netherlands, . . . I declare on behalf of the Netherlands
Government that it does not regard the Amboinese who
were transported to the Netherlands after 27 December
1949, the date of the transfer of sovereignty by the
Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Republic of the United
States of Indonesia, as eligible for the status of refugees
as defined in article 1 of the said Convention.
NEW ZEALAND
"The Government of New Zealand can only undertake
to give effect to the provisions contained in paragraph 2
of article 24 of the Convention so far as the law of New
Zealand allows."
NORWAY30
"The obligation stipulated in article 17 (1) to accord to
refugees lawfully staying in the country the most
favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign
country in the same circumstances as regards the right to
engage in wage-earning employment, shall not be
construed as extending to refugees the benefits of
agreements which may in the future be concluded
between Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden,
or between Norway and any one of these countries, for
the purpose of establishing special conditions for the
transfer of labour between these countries."
PAPUA NEW GUINEA31
"The Government of Papua New Guinea in
accordance with article 42 paragraph 1 of the Convention
makes a reservation with respect to the provisions
contained in articles 17 (1), 21, 22 (1), 26, 31, 32 and 34
of the Convention and does not accept the obligations
stipulated in these articles."
POLAND
The Republic of Poland does not consider itself bound
by the provisions of article 24, paragraph 2, of the
Convention.
PORTUGAL32
"In all cases in which the Convention confers upon the
refugees the most favoured person status granted to
nationals of a foreign country, this clause will not be
interpreted in such a way as to mean the status granted by
Portugal to the nationals of Brazil."
REPUBLIC OF KOREA33
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
“ ... with the following declarations and reservations:
1.
According to paragraph 1, article 40 of the
Convention, the Republic of Moldova declares that, until
the full restoration of the territorial integrity of the
Republic of Moldova, the provisions of this Convention
are applicable only in the territory where the jurisdiction
of the Republic of Moldova is exercised.
2.
The Republic of Moldova shall apply the
provisions of this convention with no discrimination
generally not only as to race, religion or country of origin
as stipulated in Article 3 of the Convention.
3. For the purposes of this Convention by the notion
"residence"shall be understood the permanent and lawful
domicile.
4. According to paragraph 1 of Article 42 of the
Convention, the Republic of Moldova reserves the right
that the provisions of the Convention, according to which
refugees shall be accorded treatment not less favorable
than hat accorded aliens generally, are not interpreted as
an obligation to offer refugees a regime similar to that
accorded to the citizens of the states with which the
Republic of Moldova has signed regional customs,
economic, political and social security treaties.
5. According to paragraph 1 of Article 42 of the
Convention, the Republic of Moldova reserves the right to
consider the provisions of Article 13 as recommendations
and not as obligations.
6. According to paragraph 1 of Article 42 of the
Convention, the Republic of Moldova reserves the right to
consider
the
provisions
of
Article
17
(2)
as
recommendations and not as obligations.
7. According to paragraph 1 of Article 42 of the
Convention, the Republic of Moldova interprets the
provisions of Article 21 of the Convention as not obliged
to accord housing to refugees.
8. The Government of the Republic of Moldova
reserves the right to apply the provisions of Article 24 so
that they do not infringe upon the constitutional and
domestic legislation provisions rerding the right to labor
and social protection.
9. According to paragraph 1 of Article 42 of the
Convention, in implementing Article 26 of this
Convention, the Republic of Moldova reserves the right to
establish the place of residence for certain refugees or
groups of refugees in the interest of the state and society.
10.
The Republic of Moldova shall apply the
provisions of Article 31 of the Convention as of the date
of the entry into force of the Law on Refugee Status.
RWANDA
For reasons of public policy ( ordre public ), the
Rwandese Re public reserves the right to determine the
place of residence of refugees and to establish limits to
their freedom of movement.
SIERRA LEONE
"The Government of Sierra Leone wishes to state with
regard to article 17 (2) that Sierra Leone does not consider
itself bound to grant to refugees the rights stipulated
therein.
Further, with regard to article 17 as a whole, the
Government of Sierra Leone wishes to state that it
considers the article to be a recommendation only and not
a binding obligation.
The Government of Sierra Leone wishes to state that it
does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article
29, and it reserves the right to impose special taxes on
aliens as provided for in the Constitution."
SOMALIA
“[Subject to] the following declaration:
The Government of the Somali Democratic Republic
acceded to the Convention and Protocol on the
understanding that nothing in the said Convention or
Protocol will be construed to prejudice or adversely affect
the national status, or political aspiration of displaced
people from Somali Territories under alien domination.
It is in this spirit, that the Somali Democratic Republic
will commit itself to respect the terms and provisions of
the said Convention and Protocol."
SPAIN
(a)
The expression "the most favourable treatment"
shall, in all the articles in which it is used, be interpreted
as not including rights which, by law or by treaty, are
granted to nationals of Portugal, Andorra, the Philippines
or the Latin American countries or to nationals of
countries with which international agreements of a
regional nature are concluded.
(b)
The Government of Spain considers that article
8 is not a binding rule but a recommendation.
AR570
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 32 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 12
(c)
The Government of Spain reserves its position
on the application of article 12, paragraph 1. Article 12,
paragraph 2, shall be interpreted as referring exclusively
to rights acquired by a refugee before he obtained, in any
country, the status of refugee.
(d)
Article 26 of the Convention shall be interpreted
as not precluding the adoption of special measures
concerning the place of residence of particular refugees,
in accordance with Spanish law.
SUDAN
SWEDEN34
First , a general reservation to the effect that the
application of those provisions of the Convention which
grant to refugees the most favourable treatment accorded
to nationals of a foreign country shall not be affected by
the fact that special rights and privileges are now or may
in future be accorded by Sweden to the nationals of
Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway or to the nationals
of any one of those countries; and, secondly , the
following reservations: a reservation to article 8 to the
effect that that article shall not be binding on Sweden; a
reservation to article 12, paragraph 1, to the effect that the
Convention shall not modify the rule of Swedish private
international law, as now in force, under which the
personal status of a refugee is governed by the law of his
country of nationality . . .; a reservation to article 17,
paragraph 2, to the effect that Sweden does not consider
itself bound to grant a refugee who fulfils any one of the
conditions set out in subparagraphs (a)-(c) an automatic
exemption from the obligation to obtain a work permit; a
reservation to article 24, paragraph 1 (b), to the effect that
notwithstanding the principle of national treatment for
refugees, Sweden shall not be bound to accord to refugees
the same treatment as is accorded to nationals in respect
of the possibility of entitlement to a national pension
under the provisions of the National Insurance Act; and
likewise to the effect that, in so far as the right to a
supplementary pension under the said Act and the
computation of such pension in certain respects are
concerned, the rules applicable to Swedish nationals shall
be more favourable than those applied to other insured
persons; a reservation to article 24, paragraph 3, to the
effect that the provisions of this paragraph shall not be
binding on Sweden; and a reservation to article 25, to the
effect that Sweden does not consider itself bound to cause
a certificate to be delivered by a Swedish authority, in the
place of the authorities of a foreign country, if the
documentary records necessary for the delivery of such a
certificate do not exist in Sweden.
SWITZERLAND35
TIMOR-LESTE
“In conformity with Article 42 of the Covention, the
Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste accedes to the
Convention with reservations in respect of Articles 16 (2),
20, 21, 22, 23 and 24."
TURKEY
The Turkish Government considers moreover, that the
term "events occurring before 1 January 1951" refers to
the beginning of the events. Consequently, since the
pressure exerted upon the Turkish minority in Bulgaria,
which began before 1 January 1951, is still continuing,
the provision of this Convention must also apply to the
Bulgarian refugees of Turkish extraction compelled to
leave that country as a result of this pressure and who,
being unable to enter Turkey, might seek refuge on the
territory of another contracting party after 1 January 1951.
The Turkish Government will, at the time of
ratification, enter reservations which it could make under
article 42 of the Convention.
No provision of this Convention may be interpreted as
granting to refugees greater rights than those accorded to
Turkish citizens in Turkey;
The Government of the Republic of Turkey is not a
party to the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and of 30 June
1928 mentioned in article 1, paragraph A, of this
Convention. Furthermore, the 150 persons affected by the
Arrangement of 30 June 1928 having been amnestied
under Act No.3527, the provisions laid down in this
Arrangement are no longer valid in the case of Turkey.
Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Turkey
considers the Convention of 28 July 1951 independently
of the aforementioned Arrangements . . .
The Government of the Republic understands that the
action of "re-availment" or "reacquisition" as referred to
in article 1, paragraph C, of the Convention–that is to say:
"If (1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the
protection of the country of his nationality; or (2) Having
lost his nationality, he has voluntarily reacquired it"–does
not depend only on the request of the person concerned
but also on the consent of the State in question.
UGANDA
"(1)
In respect of article 7:
The
Government of the Republic of Uganda understands this
provision as not conferring any legal, political or other
enforceable right upon refugees who, at any given time,
may be in Uganda. On the basis of this understanding the
Government of the Republic of Uganda shall accord
refugees such facilities and treatment as the Government
of the Republic of Uganda shall in her absolute discretion,
deem fit having regard to her own security, economic and
social needs.
(2)
In respect of articles 8 and 9: The
Government of the Republic of Uganda declares that the
provisions of articles 8 and 9 are recognized by it as
recommendations only.
(3)
In respect of article 13:
The
Government of the Republic of Uganda reserves to itself
the right to abridge this provision without recourse to
courts of law or arbitral tribunals, national or
international, if the Government of the Republic of
Uganda deems such abridgement to be in the public
interest.
(4)
In respect of article 15:
The
Government of the Republic of Uganda shall in the public
interest have the full freedom to withhold any or all rights
conferred by this article from any refugees as a class of
residents within her territory.
(5)
In respect of article 16:
The
Government of the Republic of Uganda understands
article 16 paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof as not requiring the
Government of the Republic of Uganda to accord to a
refugee in need of legal assistance, treatment more
favourable than that extended to aliens generally in
similar circumstances.
(6)
In respect of article 17:
The
obligation specified in article 17 to accord to refugees
lawfully staying in the country in the same circumstances
shall not be construed as extending to refugees the benefit
of preferential treatment granted to nationals of the states
who enjoy special privileges on account of existing or
future treaties between Uganda and those countries,
particularly sttes of the East African Community and the
Organization of African Unity, in accordance with the
provisions which govern such charters in this respect.
(7)
In respect of article 25:
The
Government of the Republic of Uganda understands that
this article shall not require the Government of the
Republic of Uganda to incur expenses on behalf of the
refugees in connection with the granting of such
assistance except in so far as such assistance is requested
AR571
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 33 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 13
by and the resulting expense is reimbursed to the
Government of the Republic of Uganda by the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or any other
agency of the United Nations which may succeed it.
(8)
In respect of article 32: Without
recourse to legal process the Government of the Republic
of Uganda shall, in the public interest, have the unfettered
right to expel any refugee in her territory and may at any
time apply such internal measures as the Government may
deem necessary in the circumstances; so however that,
any action taken by the Government of the Republic of
Uganda in this regard shall not operate to the prejudice of
the provisions of article 33 of this Convention.”
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
IRELAND
"(i)
The Government of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland understand articles 8
and 9 as not preventing them from taking in time of war
or other grave and exceptional circumstances measures in
the interests of national security in the case of a refugee
on the ground of his nationality. The provisions of article
8 shall not prevent the Government of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from
exercising any rights over property or interests which they
may acquire or have acquired as an Allied or Associated
power under a Treaty of Peace or other agreement or
arrangement for the restoration of peace which has been
or may be completed as a result of the Second World
War. Furthermore, the provisions of article 8 shall not
affect the treatment to be accorded to any property or
interests which at the date of entry into force of this
Convention for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland are under the control of the Government
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland by reason of a state of war which exists or existed
between them and any other State.
(ii)
The
Government
of
the
United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland accept
paragraph 2 of article 17 with the substitution of "four
years" for "three years" in sub-paragraph (a) and with the
omission of sub-paragraph (c).
(iii)
The
Government
of
the
United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in respect
of such of the matters referred to in sub-paragraph (b) of
paragraph 1 of article 24 as fall within the scope of the
National Health Service, can only undertake to apply the
provisions of that paragraph so far as the law allows; and
it can only undertake to apply the provisions of paragraph
2 of that Article so far as the law allows.
(iv)
The
Government
of
the
United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland cannot
undertake to give effect to the obligations contained in
paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 25 and can only undertake to
apply the provisions of paragraph 3 so far as the law
allows.
Commentary
In connexion with sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 1 of
article 24 relating to certain matters within the scope of
the National Health Service, the National Health Service
(Amendment) Act, 1949, contains powers for charges to
be made to persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain
(which category would include refugees) who receive
treatment under the Service. While these powers have not
yet been exercised it is possible that this might have to be
done at some future date. In Northern Ireland the health
services are restricted to persons ordinarily resident in the
country except where regulations are made to extend the
Service to others.
It is for these reasons that the
Government of the United Kingdom while they are
prepared in the future, as in the past, to give the most
sympathetic consideration to the situation of refugees,
find it necessary to make a reservation to sub-paragraph
(b) of paragraph 1 of article 24 of the Convention.
The scheme of Industrial Injuries Insurance in Great
Britain does not meet the requirements of paragraph 2 of
article 24 of the Convention. Where an insured person has
died as the result of an industrial accident or a disease due
to the nature of his employment, benefit cannot generally
be paid to his dependants who are abroad unless they are
in any part of the British Commonwealth, in the Irish
Republic or in a country with which the United Kingdom
has made a reciprocal agreement concerning the payment
of industrial injury benefits. There is an exception to this
rule in favour of the dependants of certain seamen who
die as a result of industrial accidents happening to them
while they are in the service of British ships. In this
matter refugees are treated in the same way as citizens of
the United Kingdom and Colonies and by reason of
paragraphs 3 and 4 of article 24 of the Convention, the
dependants of refugees will be able to take advantage of
reciprocal agreements which provide for the payment of
United Kingdom industrial injury benefits in other
countries. By reason of paragraphs (3) and (4) of article
24 refugees will enjoy under the scheme of National
Insurance and Industrial Injuries Insurance certain rights
which are withheld from British subjects who are not
citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
No arrangements exist in the United Kingdom for the
administrative assistance for which provision is made in
article 25 nor have any such arrangements been found
necessary in the case of refugees. Any need for the
documents or certifications mentioned in paragraph 2 of
that article would be met by affidavits."
ZAMBIA
"Subject to the following reservations made pursuant
to article 42 (1) of the Convention:
Article 17 (2)
The Government of the Republic of Zambia wishes to
state with regard to article 17, paragraph 2, that Zambia
does not consider itself bound to grant to a refugee who
fulfils any one of the conditions set out in sub-paragraphs
(a) to (c) automatic exemption from the obligation to
obtain a work permit.
Further, with regard to article 17 as a whole, Zambia
does not wish to undertake to grant to refugees rights of
wage-earning employment more favourable than those
granted to aliens generally.
Article 22 (1)
The Government of the Republic of Zambia wishes to
state that it considers article 22 (1) to be a
recommendation only and not a binding obligation to
accord to refugees the same treatment as is accorded to
nationals with respect to elementary education.
Article 26
The Government of the Republic of Zambia wishes to
state with regard to article 26 that it reserves the right to
designate a place or places of residence for refugees.
Article 28
The Government of the Republic of Zambia wishes to
state with regard to article 28 that Zambia considers itself
not bound to issue a travel document with a return clause
in cases where a country of second asylum has accepted
or indicated its willingness to accept a refugee from
Zambia."
ZIMBABWE
"1.
The Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe
declares that it is not bound by any of the reservations to
the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the
application of which had
been extended by the Government of the United
Kingdom to its territory before the attainment of
independence.
2.
The Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe
wishes to state with regard to article 17, paragraph 2, that
it does not consider itself bound to grant a refugee who
AR572
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 34 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 14
fulfills any of the conditions set out in subparagraphs (a)
to (c) automatic exemption from the obligation to obtain a
work permit. In addition, with regard to article 17 as a
whole, the Republic of Zimbabwe does not undertake to
grant to refugees rights of wage-earning employment
more favourable than those granted to aliens generally.
3.
The Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe
wishes to state that it considers article 22 (1) as being a
recommendation only and not an obligation to accord to
refugees the same treatment as it accords to nationals with
respect to elementary education.
4.
The Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe
considers articles 23 and 24 as being recommendations
only.
5.
The Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe
wishes to state with regard to article 26 that it reserves the
right to designate a place or places of residence for
refugees."
Objections
(Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were made
upon ratification, accession or succession.)
BELGIUM
[Regarding the reservation made by Guatemala upon
accession] [the Belgian Government] considers that it is
impossible for the other States parties to determine the
scope of a reservation which is expressed in such broad
terms and which refers for the most part to domestic law,
and that the reservation is thus not acceptable. It therefore
voices an objection to the said reservation.
ETHIOPIA
"The Provisional Military Government of Socialist
Ethiopia wishes to place on record its objection to the
declaration [made by Somalia upon accession] and that it
does not recognize it as valid on the ground that there are
no Somali territories under alien domination."
FRANCE
GERMANY6
"The Federal Government views [the reservation made
by Guatemala] as being worded in such general terms that
its application could conceivably nullify the provisions of
the Convention and the Protocol. Consequently, this
reservation cannot be accepted."
GREECE22
ITALY
[The Government of Italy] considers [the reservation
made by Guatemala] to be unacceptable since the very
general terms in which it is couched and the fact that it
refers for the most part to domestic law and leaves it to
the Guatemalan Government to decide whether to apply
numerous aspects of the Convention make it impossible
for other States parties to determine the scope of the
reservation.
LUXEMBOURG
NETHERLANDS
"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
is of the opinion that a reservation phrased in such general
terms and referring to the domestic law only is
undesirable, since its scope is not entirely clear."
Territorial Application
Participant
Date of receipt of the
notification
Territories
Australia
22 Jan 1954
Nauru, Norfolk Island and Papua New Guinea
Denmark
4 Dec 1952
Greenland
France
23 Jun 1954
All territories for the international relations of which France is
responsible
Netherlands7
29 Jul 1971
Suriname
United Kingdom of
Great Britain and
Northern
Ireland8,18,21,36,37,38,39,4
0,41,42
11 Mar 1954
Channel Islands and Isle of Man
25 Oct 1956
The following territories with reservations: British Solomon
Islands Protectorate, Cyprus, Dominica, Falkland Islands,
Fiji, Gambia, Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Grenada,
Jamaica, Kenya, Mauritius, St. Vincent, Seychelles,
Somaliland Protectorate, Zanzibar and St. Helena
19 Jun 1957
British Honduras
11 Jul 1960
Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland
AR573
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 35 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 15
Participant
Date of receipt of the
notification
Territories
11 Nov 1960
Basutoland, Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland
4 Sep 1968
Montserrat and St. Lucia
20 Apr 1970
Bahama Islands
Declarations and Reservations
(Unless otherwise indicated the declarations and reservations were made upon notification of territorial
application.)
DENMARK
Greenland
Subject to the reservations made on ratification by the
Government of Denmark.
NETHERLANDS7
Surinam
The extension is subject to the following reservations,
which had been made in substance by the Government of
the Netherlands upon ratification:
"1. that in all cases where the Convention, in
conjunction with the Protocol, grants to refugees the most
favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign
country, this provision shall not be interpreted as
involving the régime accorded to nationals of countries
with which the Kingdom of the Netherlands has
concluded regional, customs, economic or political
agreements which apply to Surinam;
"2. that the Government of Surinam as regards article
26 of the Convention, in conjunction with article 1,
paragraph 1, of the Protocol, reserves the right for reasons
of public order to appoint for certain refugees or groups of
refugees a principal place of residence."
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
IRELAND8,18,21,36,37,38,39,41,42
The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man
"(i) The Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland understand articles 8 and 9
as not preventing the taking in the Isle of Man and in the
Channel Islands, in time of war or other grave and
exceptional circumstances, of measures in the interests of
national security in the case of a refugee on the ground of
his nationality. The provisions of article 8 shall not
prevent the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland from exercising any rights
over property or interests which they may acquire or have
acquired as an Allied or Associated Power under a Treaty
of Peace or other agreement or arrangement for the
restoration of peace which has been or may be completed
as a result of the Second World War. Furthermore, the
provisions of article 8 shall not affect the treatment to be
accorded to any property or interests which at the date of
the entry into force of this Convention for the Isle of Man
and the Channel Islands are under the control of the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland by reason of a state of war which exists
or existed between them and any other state.
"(ii) The Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland accept paragraph 2 of article
17 in its application to the Isle of Man and the Channel
Islands with the substitution of "four years" for "three
years" in sub-paragraph (a) and with the omission of
subparagraph (c).
"(iii) The Government of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland can only undertake
that the provisions of sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 1 of
article 24 and of paragraph 2 of that article will be applied
in the Channel Islands so far as the law allows, and that
the provisions of that sub-paragraph, in respect of such
matters referred to therein as fall within the scope of the
Isle of Man Health Service, and of paragraph 2 of that
article will be applied in the Isle of Man so far as the law
allows.
"(iv) The Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland cannot undertake that effect
will be given in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands
to paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 25 and can only undertake
that the provisions of paragraph 3 will be applied in the
Isle of Man and the Channel Islands so far as the law
allows.
"The considerations upon which certain of these
reservations are based are similar to those set out in the
memorandum relating to the corresponding reservations
made in respect of the United Kingdom, which was
enclosed in my note under reference."
British Solomon Islands Protectorate, Cyprus,
Dominica, Falkland Islands, Fiji, Gambia, Gilbert and
Ellice Islands, Grenada, Jamaica, Kenya, Mauritius,
St. Vincent, Seychelles and Somaliland Protectorate
[Same reservations, in essence, as those made for the
Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.]
Zanzibar and St. Helena
[Same reservations, in essence, as those made for the
Channel Islands and the Isle of Man under Nos. (i), (iii)
and (iv).]
British Honduras
[Same reservations, in essence, as those made for the
Channel Islands and the Isle of Man under No. (i).]
Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland
[Same reservations, in essence, as those made for the
Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.]
Basutoland, Bechuanaland Protectorate and
Swaziland
[Same reservations, in essence, as those made for the
Channel Islands and the Isle of Man under Nos. (i), (iii)
and (iv).]
The Bahama Islands
"Subject to the following reservation in respect of
paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 17 of the Convention:
"Refugees and their dependants would normally be
subject to the same laws and regulations relating generally
to the employment of non-Bahamians within the
Commonwealth of the Bahama Islands, so long as they
have not acquired Bahamian status."
AR574
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 36 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 16
Notes:
1
Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifth
Session, Supplement No. 20 (A/1775), p.48.
2
The former Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the
Convention on 28 July 1951 and 15 December 1959,
respectively declaring that it considered itself bound by
alternative (b) of Section B(1) of the Convention.. See also note
1 under “Bosnia and Herzegovina”, “Croatia”, “former
Yugoslavia”, “Slovenia”, “The Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia” and “Yugoslavia” in the “Historical Information”
section in the front matter of this volume.
3
On 27 April 1999, the Government of Portugal informed
the Secretary-General that the Convention would apply to
Macau. Subsequently, on 18 November and 3 December 1999,
the Secretary-General received communications concerning the
status of Macao from the Governments of China and Portugal
(see also note 3 under “China” and note 1 under “Portugal”
regarding Macao in the “Historical Information” section in the
front matter of this volume). Upon resuming the exercise of
sovereignty over Macao, China notified the Secretary-General
that the Convention with the reservation made by China will
also apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region.
4
Czechoslovakia had acceeded to the Convention on
26 November 1991 declaring that it considered itself bound by
alternative (b) of Section B (1) of the Convention. See also note
1 under “Czech Republic” and note 1 under “Slovakia” in the
“Historical Information” section in the front matter of this
volume.
5
See note 1 under “Germany” regarding Berlin (West) in
the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this
volume.
6
The German Democratic Republic had acceded to the
Convention on 4 September 1990 choosing alternative (b) of
Section B (1) of the Convention. See also note 2 under
“Germany” in the “Historical Information” section in the front
matter of this volume.
7
Upon notifying its succession (29 November1978) the
Government of Suriname informed the Secretary-General that
the Republic of Suriname did not succeed to the reservations
formulated on 29 July 1951 by the Netherlands when the
Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees were
extended to Suriname.
8
In a declaration contained in the notification of succession
to the Convention, the Government of Tuvalu confirmed that it
regards the Convention [. . .] as continuing in force subject to
reservations previously made by the Government of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in relation to the
Colony of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands.
9
The instrument of accession was accompanied by the
following communication:
"Having transmitted to the Secretary-General the Instrument
of Accession of Ukraine simultaneously to the 1951 Convention
and 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees, and in view
of the fact that the Protocol provides in article I (2) that "the
term ‘refugee' shall...mean any person within the definition of
article 1 of the Convention as if the words ‘As result of events
occurring before 1 anuary 1951 and...'and the words ‘...as a
result of such events' in article 1 A (2) were omitted" and thus
modifies in effect the provisions of article 1 of the Convention,
it is the position of the Government of Ukraine that no separate
declaration under article 1 B (1) of the Convention is required in
the circumstances."
10
The formality was effected by the Yemen Arab Republic.
See also note 1 under “Yemen” in the “Historical Information”
section in the front matter of this volume.
11
States having previously specified alternative (a) under
section B (1) of article 1.
12
Notifications of the extension of their obligations under
the Convention by adopting alternative (b) of section B (1) of
article 1 of the Convention were received by the Secretary-
General on the dates indicated:
Participant
Date of notification
Argentina
5
Nov
1984
Australia
1
Dec
1967
Benin
6
Jul
1970
Brazil
14
Feb
1990
Cameroon
29
Dec
1961
Central African Republic
15
Oct
1962
Chile
28
Jan
1972
Colombia
10
Oct
1961
Côte d'Ivoire
20
Dec
1966
Ecuador
1
Feb
1972
France
3
Feb
1971
Holy See
17
Nov
1961
Hungary
8
Jan
1998
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
27
Sep
1976
Italy
1
Mar
1990
Latvia
3
Nov
1997
Luxembourg
22
Aug
1972
Malta
17
Jan
2002
Niger
7
Dec
1964
Paraguay
10
Jan
1991
Peru
8
Dec
1980
Portugal
13
Jul
1976
Senegal
12
Oct
1964
Sudan
7
Mar
1974
Togo
23
Oct
1962
13
On 21 January 1983, the Secretary-General received from
the Government of Botswana the following communication:
"Having simultaneously acceded to the Convention and
Protocol [relating to the status of refugees done at New York on
31January 1967] on the 6th January 1969 and in view of the fact
that the Protocol provides in article I (2) that the term ‘refugee’
shall ...mean any person within the definition of article 1 of the
Convention' as if the words `As a result of events occurring
before 1 January 1951 and' . . . and the words `. . . as a result of
such events', in article [I(A)(2)] were omitted and thus modifies
in effect the provisions of article 1 of the Convention, it is the
position of the Government of Botswana that no separate
declaration under article 1.B(1) of the Convention is required in
the circumstances."
AR575
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 37 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 17
On the basis of the afore-mentioned communication, the
Secretary-General has included Botswana in the list of States
having chosen formula (b) under section B of article 1.
Subsequently, in a communication, received by the Secretary-
General on 29 April 1986, and with reference to article 1 B (1)
of the above-mentioned Convention, the Government of
Botswana confirmed that it has no objection to be listed among
the States applying the Convention without any geographical
limitation.
14
The instrument of accession contains the following
declaration:
"... The mandatory declaration specifying which of the two
meanings in Article 1 (B) (l) a Contracting State applies for the
purpose of its obligations under the Convention has been
superseded by the provisions of Article 1 of the Protocol
Relating to the Status of Refugees of 31 January 1967.
Furthermore, the previous date-line would render Malawi's
accession nugatory.
"Consequently, and since [the Government of the Republic of
Malawi] is simultaneously acceding to the said Protocol, the
obligations hereby assumed by the Government of the Republic
of Malawi are not limited by the previous dateline or bounded
by the concomi tant geographic limitation in the Convention."
On the basis of the above declaration, the Secretary-General
has included Malawi in the list of States having chosen formula
(b) under sec tion B of article l.
Further, on 4 February 1988, the Secretary-General received
the following declaration from the Government of Malawi:
"When making the declaration under Section B of article 1 of
the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Malawi
intended and intends to apply the Convention and the Protocol
thereto liberally in the lines of article 1 of the Protocol without
being bounded by the geographic limitation or the dateline
specified in the Convention.
"In the view of the Government of the Republic of Malawi the
formula in the Convention is static and the Government of the
Republic of Malawi's position, as stated, merely seeks to assist
in the progressive development of international law in this area
as epitomised by the 1967 Protocol. It is therefore the view of
the Government of the Republic of Malawi that the declaration
is consistent with the objects and purposes of the Convention
and it entails the assumption of obligation beyond but perfectly
consistent with those of the Convention and the Protocol
thereto."
In view of the said declaration, Malawi remains listed among
those States which, in accordance with Section B of article 1 of
the Convention, will apply the said Convention to events
occurring in Europe or elsewhere before 1 January 1951.
15
In a communication received on 1 December 1967, the
Government of Australia notified the Secretary-General of the
withdrawal of the reservations to articles 17, 18, 19, 26 and 32,
and, in a communication received by the Secretary-General on
11 March 1971, of the withdrawal of the reservation to
paragraph 1 of article 28 of the Convention. For the text of
those reservations, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol.189,
p.202.
16
These reservations replace those made at the time of
signature. For the text of reservations made on signature, see
United Nations, Treaty Series , vol.189, p.186.
17
On 7 April 1972, upon its accession to the Protocol
relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31
January 1967, the Government of Brazil withdraws its
reservations excluding articles 15 and 17, paragraphs 1 and 3,
from its application to the Convention. For the text of the said
reservations, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 380,
p.430.
18
On notifying its succession to the Convention, the
Government of Cyprus confirmed the reservations made at the
time of the extension of the Convention to its territory by the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland. For the text of these reservations, see
"Declarations and reservations made upon notification of
territorial application" under United Kingdom.
19
In a communication received on 23 August 1962, the
Government of Denmark informed the Secretary-General of its
decision to withdraw as from 1 October 1961 the reservation to
article 14 of the Convention.
In a communication received on 25 March 1968, the
Government of Denmark informed the Secretary-General of its
decision to withdraw as from that date the reservations made on
ratification to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of article 24 and partially
the reservation made on ratification to article 17 by rewording
the said reservation. For the text of the reservations originally
formulated by the Government of Denmark on ratification, see
United Nations, Treaty Series , vol.189, p.198.
20
On 7 October 2004, the Government of Finland informed
the Secretary-General of the following:
“WHEREAS
the
Instrument
of
Accession
contained
reservations, inter alia, to Article 7, paragraph 2; Article 8;
Article 12, paragraph 1; Article 24, paragraph 1 (b) and
paragraph 3; Article 25 and Article 28, paragraph 1 in the
Convention;
NOW THEREFORE the Government of the Republic of
Finland do hereby withdraw the said reservations, while the
general reservation concerning nationals of Denmark, Iceland,
Norway and Sweden and the reservation on Article 24,
paragraph 3, will remain.”
The original reservations made upon accession, read as
follows:
“[S]ubject to the following reservations:
(1)
A general reservation to the effect that the application of
those provisions of the Convention which grant to refugees the
most favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign
country shall not be affected by the fact that special rights and
privileges are now or may in future be accorded by Finland to
the nationals of Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden or to the
nationals of any one of those Countries;
(2)
A reservation to article 7, paragraph 2, to the effect that
Finland is not prepared, as a general measure, to grant refugees
who fulfil the conditions of three years residence in Finland an
exemption from any legislative reciprocity which Finnish law
AR576
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 38 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 18
may have stipulated as a condition governing an alien’s
eligibility for same right or privilege;
(3)
A reservation to article 8 to the effect that that article
shall not be binding on Finland;
(4) A reservation to article 12, paragraph 1, to the effect that
the Convention shall not modify the rule of Finnish private
international law, as now in force, under which the personal
status of a refugee is governed by the law of his country of
nationality;
(5)
A reservation to article 24, paragraph 1 (b) and
paragraph 3 to the effect that they shall not be binding on
Finland;
(6)
A reservation to article 25,ffect that Finland does not
consider itself bound to cause a certificate to be delivered by a
Finnish authority, in the place of the authorities of a foreign
country, if the documentary records necessary for the delivery of
such certificate do not exist in Finland;
(7)
A reservation with respect to the provisions contained in
paragraph 1 of article 28.
Finland does not accept the
obligations stipulated in the said paragraph, but is prepared to
recognize travel documents issued by other Contracting States
pursuant to this article."
21
On notifying its succession to the Convention, the
Government of Gambia confirmed the reservations made at the
time of the extension of the Convention to its territory by the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland.
22
In a communication received by the Secretary-General on
19 April 1978, the Government of Greece declared that it
withdrew the reservations that it had made upon ratification
pertaining to articles 8, 11, 13, 24 (3), 26, 28, 31, 32 and 34, and
also the objection contained in paragraph 6 of the relevant
declaration of reservations by Greece is also withdrawn.
Subsequently, in a notification received on 27 February 1995,
the Government of Greece notified the Secretary-General that it
had decided to withdraw its reservation to article 17 made upon
ratification. For the text of the reservations and objection so
withdrawn, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 354, p.402.
23
In a communication received on 26 April 2007, the
Government of the Republic of Guatemala notified the
Secretary-General that it has decided to withdraw the reservation
and declaration made upon accession to the Convention. The
text of the reservation and declaration withdrawn reads as
follows:
The Republic of Guatemala accedes to the Convention relating
to the Status of Refugees and its Protocol, with the reservation
that it will not apply provisions of those instruments in respect
of which the Convention allows reservations if those provisions
contravene constitutional precepts in Guatemala or norms of
public order under domestic law.
The expression "treatment as favourable as possible" in all
articles of the Convention and of the Protocol in which the
expression is used should be interpreted as not including rights
which, under law or treaty, the Republic of Guatemala has
accorded or is according to nationals of the Central American
countries or of other countries with which it has concluded or is
entering into agreements of a regional nature.
24
On 29 May 2013, the Government of Honduras informed
the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the
following reservations to articles 24, 26 and 31 of the
Convention made upon accession:
(c)
With respect to article 24:
The Government of Honduras shall apply this article to the
extent that it does not violate constitutional provisions governing
labour, administrative or social security legislation in force in
the country;
(d)
With respect to articles 26 and 31:
The Government of Honduras reserves the right to designate,
change or limit the place of residence of certain refugees or
groups of refugees and to restrict their freedom of movement
when national or international considerations so warrant;
25
In a communication received on 23 October 1968, the
Government of Ireland notified the Secretary-General of the
withdrawal of two of its reservations in respect of article 29 (1),
namely those indicated at (a) and (b) of paragraph 5 of
declarations and reservations contained in the instrument of
accession by the Government of Ireland to the Convention; for
the text of the withdrawn reservations, see United Nations,
Treaty Series , vol. 254, p.412.
26
In a communication received on 20 October 1964, the
Government of Italy has notified the Secretary-General that "it
withdraws the reservations made at the time of signature, and
confirmed at the time of ratification, to articles 6, 7, 8, 19, 22,
23, 25 and 34 of the Convention [see United Nations, Treaty
Series , vol.189, p. 192]. The above-mentioned reservations are
inconsistent with the internal provisions issued by the Italian
Government since the ratification of the Convention. The Italian
Government also adopted in December 1963 provisions which
implement the contents of paragraph 2 of article 17".
Furthermore, the Italian Government confirms that "it
maintains its declaration made in accordance with section B (1)
of article 1, and that it recognizes the provisions of articles 17
and 18 as recommendations only". (See also note 12 .)
Subsequently, in a communication received on 1 March 1990,
the Government of Italy notified the Secretary-General that it
had decided to withdraw the declaration by which the provisions
of articles 17 and 18 were recognized by it as recommendations
only. For the complete text of the reservations see United
Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 189, p.192.
27
On 13 October 2009, the Government of Liechtenstein
informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw
the reservations concerning articles 17 and 24 of the Convention
made upon Ratification. The texts of the reservations withdrawn
read as follows:
Ad article 17: With respect to the right to engage in wage-
earning employment, refugees are treated in law on the same
footing as aliens in general, on the understanding, however, that
AR577
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 39 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 19
the competent authorities shall make every effort insofar as
possible, to apply to them the provisions of this article.
Ad article 24, paragraph 1(a) and (b), and paragraph 3:
Provisions
relating
to
aliens
in
general
on
training,
apprenticeship, unemployment insurance, old-age and survivors
insurance shall be applicable to refugees. Nevertheless, in the
case of old-age and survivors insurance, refugees residing in
Liechtenstein (including their survivors if the latter are
considered as refugees) are already entitled to normal old-age or
survivors’ benefits after paying their contributions for at least
one full year, provided that they have resided in Liechtenstein
for ten years – of which five years without interruption have
immediately preceded the occurrence of the event insured
against. Moreover, the one-third reduction in benefits provided
in the case of aliens and stateless persons under article 74 of the
Act on Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, is not applicable to
refugees. Refugees residing in Liechtenstein who, on the
occurrence of the event insured against, are not entitled to old-
age or survivors’ benefits, are paid not only their own
contributions but any contributions which may have been made
by the employers.
28
The instrument of accession deposited by the Government
of Malta was accompanied by the following reservation:
"Article 7, paragraph 2, articles 14, 23, 27 and 28 shall not
apply to Malta, and article 7, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, articles 8, 9,
11, 17, 18, 31, 32 and 34 shall apply to Malta compatibly with
its
own
special
problems,
its
peculiar
position
and
characteristics."
On 17 January 2002, the Secretary-General received the
following communication from the Government of Malta:
"The
Government
of
Malta.....hereby
withdraws
the
reservations relating to article 7 (2), Articles 14, 27, 28, 7 (3)(4),
(5), 8, 9, 17, 18, 31 and 32; ... and confirms that: “Article 23
shall not apply to Malta, and articles 11, and 34 shall apply to
Malta compatibly and with its own special problems, its peculiar
position and characteristics.” Further, on 24 February 2004, the
Secretary-General received from the Government of Malta, the
following communication:
[The Government of Malta] “declare that the Government of
Malta, having reviewed the remaining reservations and
declaration, hereby withdraws the reservations relating to Article
23, and the reservations in respect of Articles 11 and 34 wherein
these applied to Malta compatibly with its own special
problems, its peculiar positions and characteristics."
29
On 11 July 2014, the Government of Mexico notified the
Secretary-General of the partial withdrawal of the reservation
made upon accession. The portion of the reservation which has
been withdrawn read as follows:
The Government of Mexico lodges an express reservation to
article 32 of the Convention and, therefore refers to the
application of article 33 of the Political Constitution of the
United Mexican States, without prejudice to observance of the
principle of non-refoulement set forth in article 33 of the
Convention.
30
In a communication received by the Secretary-General on
21 January 1954, the Government of Norway gave notice of the
withdrawal, with immediate effect, of the reservation to article
24 of the Convention, "as the Acts mentioned in the said
reservation have been amended to accord to refugees lawfully
staying in the country the same treatment as is accorded to
Norwegian nationals". For the text of that reservation, see
United Nations, Treaty Series , vol.189, p.198.
31
On 20 August 2013, the Government of the Independent
State of Papua New Guinea notified the Secretary-General, in
accordance with article 42 (2) of the Convention, of its decision
to partially withdraw its reservation made upon accession:
“… In accordance with article 42, paragraph 2 of the
Convention, I wish to communicate to you that Papua New
Guinea withdraws its reservation with respect to the provisions
contained in articles 17 (1), 21, 22 (1), 26, 31, 32 and 34 of the
Convention in relations to refugees transferred by the
Government of Australia to Papua New Guinea and accepts the
obligations stipulated in these articles in relation to such
persons. This withdrawal has immediate effect. The reservation
remains in effect for all other persons…”
32
The text, which was communicated in a notification
received on 13 July 1976, replaces the reservations originally
made by Portugal upon accession.
For the text of the
reservations withdrawn, see United Nations, Treaty Series ,
vol. 383, p.314.
33
In a communication received on 1 September 2009, the
Government of the Republic of Korea notified the Secretary-
General that it has decided to withdraw the reservation in respect
to article 7 made upon accession to the Convention as of 8
September 2009. The text of the reservation withdrawn reads as
follows:
"The Republic of Korea declares pursuant to article 42 of the
Convention that it is not bound by article 7 which provides for
the exemption of refugees from legislative reciprocity after
fulfilling the condition of three years' residence in the territory
of the Contracting States."
34
In a communication received on 20 April 1961, the
Government of Sweden gave notice of the withdrawal, as from 1
July 1961, of the reservation to article 14 of the Convention.
In a communication received on 25 November 1966, the
Government of Sweden has notified the Secretary-General that it
has decided, in accordance with paragraph 2 of article 42 of the
Convention, to withdraw some of its reservations to article 24,
paragraph 1 (b), by rewording them and to withdraw the
reservation to article 24, paragraph 2.
In a communication received on 5 March 1970, the
Government of Sweden notified the Secretary-General of the
withdrawal of its reservation to article 7, paragraph 2, of the
Convention.
For the text of the reservations as originally formulated by the
Government of Sweden upon ratification, see United Nations,
Treaty Series , vol. 200, p. 336.
35
In a communication received on 18 February 1963, the
Government of Switzerland gave notice to the Secretary-General
of the withdrawal of the reservation made at the time of
ratification to article 24, paragraph 1 (a) and (b) and paragraph
AR578
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 40 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 20
3, of the Convention, in so far as that reservation concerns old-
age and survivors' insurance.
In a communication received on 3 July 1972, the Government
of Switzerland gave notice of its withdrawal of the reservation to
article 17 formulated in its instrument of ratification of the
Convention.
In a communication received on 17 December 1980, the
Government of Switzerland gave notice of its withdrawal, in its
entirety, of the subsisting reservation formulated in respect of
article 24, number 1, letters a and b, which encompasses
training, apprenticeship and unemployment insurance with
effect from 1 January 1981, date of entry into force of the Swiss
Law on Asylum of 5 October 1979. For the text of the
reservations made initially, see United Nations, Treaty Series ,
vol. 202, p. 368.
36
See succession by Jamaica.
37
See succession by Kenya.
38
In a letter addressed to the Secretary-General on 22 March
1968, the President of the Republic of Malawi, referring to the
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, done at Geneva
on 28 July 1951, stated the following:
"In my letter to you of the 24th November 1964, concerning
the disposition of Malawi's inherited treaty obligations, my
Government declared that with respect to multilateral treaties
which had been applied or extended to the former Nyasaland
Protectorate, any Party to such a treaty could on the basis of
reciprocity rely as against Malawi on the terms of such treaty
until Malawi notified its depositary of what action it wished to
take by way of confirmation of termination, confirmation of
succession, or accession.
"I am now to inform you as depositary of this Convention that
the Government of Malawi wishes to terminate any connection
with this Convention which it might have inherited. The
Government of Malawi considers that any legal relationship
with the aforementioned Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees, Geneva, 1951 which might have devolved upon it by
way of succession from the ratification of the United Kingdom,
is terminated as of this date."
See succession by Zambia.
39
See succession by Botswana (formerly Bechuanaland
Protectorate).
40
On 3 October 1983, the Secretary-General received from
the Government of Argentina the following objection :
[The Government of Argentina makes a] formal objection to
the declaration of territorial extension issued by the United
Kingdom
with
regard
to
the
Malvinas
Islands
(and
dependencies), which that country is illegally occupying and
refers to as the "Falkland Islands".
The Argentine Republic rejects and considers null and void
the [declaration] of territorial extension.
With reference to the above-mentioned objection the
Secretary-General received, on 28 February 1985, from the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland the following declaration:
"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland have no doubt as to their right, by notification
to the Depositary under the relevant provisions of the above-
mentioned Convention, to extend the application of the
Convention in question to the Falkland Islands or to the Falkland
Islands Dependencies, as the case may be.
For this reason alone, the Government of the United Kingdom
are unable to regard the Argentine [communication] under
reference as having any legal effect."
41
See note 1 under “United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland” in the “Historical Information” section in the
front matter of this volume.
42
See succession by Fiji.
AR579
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 41 of 175
V 2. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 21
AR580
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 42 of 175
V 5. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 1
5. PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES
New York, 31 January 1967
.ENTRY INTO FORCE:
4 October 1967, in accordance with article VIII.
REGISTRATION:
4 October 1967, No. 8791.
STATUS:
Parties: 147.
TEXT:
United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 606, p. 267.
Note: On the recommendation of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees, the High Commissioner submitted the draft of the above-mentioned Protocol to the General Assembly of the
United Nations, through the Economic and Social Council, in the addendum to his report concerning measures to extend the
personal scope of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The Economic and Social Council, in resolution 1186
(XLI)1 of 16 november 1966, took note with approval of the draft Protocol and transmitted the said addendum to the General
Assembly. The General Assembly, in resolution 2198 (XXI)2 of 16 December 1966, took note of the Protocol and requested
the Secretary-General "to transmit the text of the Protocol to the States mentioned in article V thereof, with a view to
enabling them to accede to the Protocol."
.
Participant
Accession(a),
Succession(d)
Afghanistan.............................................30 Aug 2005 a
Albania....................................................18 Aug 1992 a
Algeria .................................................... 8 Nov 1967 a
Angola ....................................................23 Jun
1981 a
Antigua and Barbuda.............................. 7 Sep
1995 a
Argentina ................................................ 6 Dec 1967 a
Armenia .................................................. 6 Jul
1993 a
Australia3,4 ..............................................13 Dec 1973 a
Austria .................................................... 5 Sep
1973 a
Azerbaijan...............................................12 Feb
1993 a
Bahamas..................................................15 Sep
1993 a
Belarus....................................................23 Aug 2001 a
Belgium .................................................. 8 Apr 1969 a
Belize......................................................27 Jun
1990 a
Benin....................................................... 6 Jul
1970 a
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)............... 9 Feb
1982 a
Bosnia and Herzegovina5........................ 1 Sep
1993 d
Botswana ................................................ 6 Jan
1969 a
Brazil ...................................................... 7 Apr 1972 a
Bulgaria ..................................................12 May 1993 a
Burkina Faso...........................................18 Jun
1980 a
Burundi...................................................15 Mar 1971 a
Cabo Verde............................................. 9 Jul
1987 a
Cambodia................................................15 Oct
1992 a
Cameroon................................................19 Sep
1967 a
Canada .................................................... 4 Jun
1969 a
Central African Republic........................30 Aug 1967 a
Participant
Accession(a),
Succession(d)
Chad........................................................19 Aug 1981 a
Chile........................................................27 Apr 1972 a
China6 .....................................................24 Sep
1982 a
Colombia ................................................ 4 Mar 1980 a
Congo......................................................10 Jul
1970 a
Costa Rica...............................................28 Mar 1978 a
Côte d'Ivoire ...........................................16 Feb
1970 a
Croatia5 ...................................................12 Oct
1992 d
Cyprus..................................................... 9 Jul
1968 a
Czech Republic7 .....................................11 May 1993 d
Democratic Republic of the Congo ........13 Jan
1975 a
Denmark4................................................29 Jan
1968 a
Djibouti................................................... 9 Aug 1977 d
Dominica ................................................17 Feb
1994 a
Dominican Republic............................... 4 Jan
1978 a
Ecuador................................................... 6 Mar 1969 a
Egypt.......................................................22 May 1981 a
El Salvador .............................................28 Apr 1983 a
Equatorial Guinea................................... 7 Feb
1986 a
Estonia ....................................................10 Apr 1997 a
Eswatini ..................................................28 Jan
1969 a
Ethiopia...................................................10 Nov 1969 a
Fiji ..........................................................12 Jun
1972 d
Finland....................................................10 Oct
1968 a
France4.................................................... 3 Feb
1971 a
Gabon......................................................28 Aug 1973 a
Gambia....................................................29 Sep
1967 a
AR581
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 43 of 175
V 5. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 2
Participant
Accession(a),
Succession(d)
Georgia ................................................... 9 Aug 1999 a
Germany8,9.............................................. 5 Nov 1969 a
Ghana......................................................30 Oct
1968 a
Greece..................................................... 7 Aug 1968 a
Guatemala...............................................22 Sep
1983 a
Guinea.....................................................16 May 1968 a
Guinea-Bissau.........................................11 Feb
1976 a
Haiti ........................................................25 Sep
1984 a
Holy See ................................................. 8 Jun
1967 a
Honduras.................................................23 Mar 1992 a
Hungary ..................................................14 Mar 1989 a
Iceland ....................................................26 Apr 1968 a
Iran (Islamic Republic of).......................28 Jul
1976 a
Ireland..................................................... 6 Nov 1968 a
Israel .......................................................14 Jun
1968 a
Italy.........................................................26 Jan
1972 a
Jamaica ...................................................30 Oct
1980 a
Japan....................................................... 1 Jan
1982 a
Kazakhstan..............................................15 Jan
1999 a
Kenya......................................................13 Nov 1981 a
Kyrgyzstan.............................................. 8 Oct
1996 a
Latvia......................................................31 Jul
1997 a
Lesotho ...................................................14 May 1981 a
Liberia.....................................................27 Feb
1980 a
Liechtenstein...........................................20 May 1968 a
Lithuania.................................................28 Apr 1997 a
Luxembourg............................................22 Apr 1971 a
Malawi....................................................10 Dec 1987 a
Mali......................................................... 2 Feb
1973 a
Malta.......................................................15 Sep
1971 a
Mauritania............................................... 5 May 1987 a
Mexico.................................................... 7 Jun
2000 a
Monaco...................................................16 Jun
2010 a
Montenegro.............................................10 Oct
2006 d
Morocco..................................................20 Apr 1971 a
Mozambique........................................... 1 May 1989 a
Namibia ..................................................17 Feb
1995 a
Nauru ......................................................28 Jun
2011 a
Netherlands4,10 ........................................29 Nov 1968 a
New Zealand........................................... 6 Aug 1973 a
Nicaragua................................................28 Mar 1980 a
Niger....................................................... 2 Feb
1970 a
Nigeria .................................................... 2 May 1968 a
North Macedonia5...................................18 Jan
1994 d
Norway ...................................................28 Nov 1967 a
Participant
Accession(a),
Succession(d)
Panama.................................................... 2 Aug 1978 a
Papua New Guinea .................................17 Jul
1986 a
Paraguay ................................................. 1 Apr 1970 a
Peru.........................................................15 Sep
1983 a
Philippines ..............................................22 Jul
1981 a
Poland.....................................................27 Sep
1991 a
Portugal6 .................................................13 Jul
1976 a
Republic of Korea................................... 3 Dec 1992 a
Republic of Moldova..............................31 Jan
2002 a
Romania.................................................. 7 Aug 1991 a
Russian Federation ................................. 2 Feb
1993 a
Rwanda................................................... 3 Jan
1980 a
Samoa .....................................................29 Nov 1994 a
Sao Tome and Principe........................... 1 Feb
1978 a
Senegal.................................................... 3 Oct
1967 a
Serbia5.....................................................12 Mar 2001 d
Seychelles...............................................23 Apr 1980 a
Sierra Leone............................................22 May 1981 a
Slovakia7................................................. 4 Feb
1993 d
Slovenia5................................................. 6 Jul
1992 d
Solomon Islands .....................................12 Apr 1995 a
Somalia...................................................10 Oct
1978 a
South Africa............................................12 Jan
1996 a
South Sudan............................................10 Dec 2018 a
Spain.......................................................14 Aug 1978 a
St. Vincent and the Grenadines .............. 3 Nov 2003 a
Sudan ......................................................23 May 1974 a
Suriname11 ..............................................29 Nov 1978 d
Sweden.................................................... 4 Oct
1967 a
Switzerland.............................................20 May 1968 a
Tajikistan ................................................ 7 Dec 1993 a
Timor-Leste ............................................ 7 May 2003 a
Togo........................................................ 1 Dec 1969 a
Trinidad and Tobago ..............................10 Nov 2000 a
Tunisia ....................................................16 Oct
1968 a
Turkey.....................................................31 Jul
1968 a
Turkmenistan.......................................... 2 Mar 1998 a
Tuvalu..................................................... 7 Mar 1986 d
Uganda....................................................27 Sep
1976 a
Ukraine ................................................... 4 Apr 2002 a
United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland4 .............................. 4 Sep
1968 a
United Republic of Tanzania.................. 4 Sep
1968 a
United States of America........................ 1 Nov 1968 a
Uruguay ..................................................22 Sep
1970 a
AR582
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 44 of 175
V 5. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 3
Participant
Accession(a),
Succession(d)
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of).......19 Sep
1986 a
Yemen12..................................................18 Jan
1980 a
Participant
Accession(a),
Succession(d)
Zambia....................................................24 Sep
1969 a
Zimbabwe...............................................25 Aug 1981 a
Declarations and Reservations
(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon accession
or succession.)
ANGOLA
The Government of Angola, in accordance with article
VII, paragraph 1, declares that it does not consider itself
bound by article IV of the Protocol, concerning settlement
of disputes relating to the interpretation of the Protocol.
BOTSWANA
"Subject to the reservation in respect of article IV of
the said Protocol and in respect of the application in
accordance with article I thereof of the provisions of
articles 7, 17, 26, 31, 32 and 34 and paragraph 1 of article
12 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,
done at Geneva on 28 July 1951."
BURUNDI
In acceding to this Protocol, the Government of the
Republic of Burundi enters the following reservations:
1.
The provisions of article 22 are accepted, in
respect of elementary education, only
(a)
In so far as they apply to public education, and
not to private education;
(b)
On the understanding that the treatment
applicable to refugees shall be the most favourable
accorded to nationals of other States.
2.
The provisions of article 17 (1) and (2) are
accepted as mere recommendations and, in any event,
shall not be interpreted as necessarily involving the
régime accorded to nationals of countries with which the
Republic of Burundi may have concluded regional,
customs, economic or political agreements.
3.
The provisions of article 26 are accepted only
subject to the reservation that refugees:
(a)
Do not choose their place of residence in a
region bordering on their country of origin;
(b)
Refrain, in any event, when exercising their right
to move freely, from any activity or incursion of a
subversive nature with respect to the country of which
they are nationals.
CABO VERDE
In all cases where the 1951 Convention relating to the
Status of Refugees grants to refugees the most favorable
treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country, this
provision shall not be interpreted as involving the régime
accorded to nationals of countries with which Cape Verde
has concluded regional customs, economic or political
agreements.
CHILE
[See chapter V.2.]
CHINA
With a reservation in respect of article 4.
CONGO
The Protocol is accepted with the exception of article
IV.
EL SALVADOR
With the reservation that the Government of El
Salvador will not apply article 4 of the Protocol.
ESWATINI
Subject to the following reservations in respect of the
application of the Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees, done at Geneva on 28 July 1951, under article I
of the Protocol:
"(1) The Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland
is not in a position to assume obligations as contained in
article 22 of the said Convention, and therefore will not
consider itself bound by the provisions therein;
(2) Similarly, the Government of the Kingdom of
Swaziland is not in a position to assume the obligations of
article 34 of the said Convention, and must expressly
reserve the right not to apply the provisions therein."
"The Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland
deems it essential to draw attention to the accession as a
Member of the United Nations, and not as a Party to the
[Convention relating to the Status of Refugees] by reason
of succession or otherwise."
ETHIOPIA
[See chapter V.2.]
FINLAND
[See chapter V.2.]
GHANA
"The Government of Ghana does not consider itself
bound by article IV of the Protocol regarding the
settlement of disputes."
GUATEMALA13
HONDURAS
With respect to article I (1):
The Government of the Republic of Honduras does
not consider itself bound by those articles of the
Convention to which it has entered reservations.
ISRAEL
"The Government of Israel accedes to the Protocol
subject to the same statements and reservations made at
the time of ratifying the Convention [relating to the Status
of Refugees, done at Geneva on 28 July 1951], in
accordance with the provisions of article VII (2) of the
Protocol."
AR583
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 45 of 175
V 5. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 4
JAMAICA
“[Subject] to the reservations set out below, ... [:]
1.
The Government of Jamaica understands articles
8 and 9 of the Convention as not preventing it from
taking, in time of war or other grave and exceptional
circumstances, measures in the interest of national
security in the case of a refugee on the ground of his
nationality.
2.
The Government of Jamaica can only undertake
that the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 17 of the
Convention will be applied so far as the law of Jamaica
allows.
3.
The Government of Jamaica can only undertake
that the provisions of article 24 of the Convention will be
applied so far as the law of Jamaica allows.
4.
The Government of Jamaica can only undertake
that the provisions of paragraphs l, 2, and 3 of article 25
of the Convention will be applied so far as the law of
Jamaica allows.
5.
The Government of Jamaica does not accept the
obligation imposed by article IV of the Protocol relating
to the Status of Refugees with regard to the settlement of
disputes."
LATVIA
“Declaration
In accordance with paragraph 2 of the article VII of
the [said Protocol], the Republic of Latvia declares that
the reservations made in accordance with article 41 of the
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 are
applicable in relation to the obligations under the
Protocol."
[See chapter V.2.]
LUXEMBOURG
[See chapter V.2.]
MALAWI
"The Government of the Republic of Malawi reiterates
its declaration on recognition as compulsory the
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice made on
12 December, 1966 in conformity with Article 36,
paragraph 2 of the Statute of the Court. In this respect,
the Government of the Republic of Malawi regards the
phrase `settled by other means' in Article 38 of the
Convention and Article IV of the Protocol to be those
means stipulated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United
Nations."
MALTA
In accordance with article VII (2), the reservations to
the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28
July 1951 by the Government of Malta on deposit of its
instrument of accession on 17 June 1971, pursuant to
article 42 of the said Convention, are applicable in
relation to its obligations under the present Protocol.
NETHERLANDS10
"In accordance with article VII of the Protocol, all
reservations made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands
upon signature and ratification of the Convention relating
to the Status of Refugees, which was signed in Geneva on
28 July 1951, are regarded to apply to the obligations
resulting from the Protocol."
PERU
[The Government of Peru] hereby expressly declares,
with reference to the provisions of article I, paragraph 1,
and article II of the aforementioned Protocol, that
compliance with the obligations undertaken by virtue of
the act of accession to that instrument shall be ensured by
the Peruvian State using all the means at its disposal, and
the Government of Peru shall endeavour in all cases to co-
operate as far as possible with the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
PORTUGAL
“1.
The Protocol will be applied without any
geographical limitation.
2.
In all cases in which the Protocol confers upon
the refugees the most favoured person status granted to
nationals of a foreign country, this clause will not be
interpreted in such a way as to mean the status granted by
Portugal to the nationals of Brazil or to the nationals of
other countries with whom Portugal may establish
commonwealth type relations."
REPUBLIC OF KOREA14
RWANDA
For the settlement of any dispute between States
Parties, recourse may be had to the International Court of
Justice only with the prior agreement of the Rwandese
Republic.
SOMALIA
[See chapter V.2.]
ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
"In accordance with the provisions of Article VII
paragraph 1 of the aforesaid Protocol, however, the
Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines makes a
reservation with respect to Articles IV of the Protocol
that, for the submission of any dispute in terms of that
article to the jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice, the express consent of all the parties to the dispute
is required in each case."
TIMOR-LESTE
"In conformity with Article VII and I of the Protocol,
the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste accedes to the
Protocol, with the understanding that it has made
reservations to Articles 16 (2), 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of
the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees adopted
by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 28
July, 1951."
TURKEY
The instrument of accession stipulates that the
Government of Turkey maintains the provisions of the
declaration made under section B of article 1 of the
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, done at
Geneva on 28 July 1951, according to which it applies the
Convention only to persons who have become refugees as
a result of events occurring in Europe, and also the
reservation clause made upon ratification of the
Convention to the effect that no provision of this
Convention may be interpreted as granting to refugees
greater rights than those accorded to Turkish citizens in
Turkey.
UGANDA
[See chapter V.2.]
AR584
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 46 of 175
V 5. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 5
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
IRELAND
"(a) In accordance with the provisions of the first
sentence of Article VII.4 of the Protocol, the United
Kingdom hereby excludes from the application of the
Protocol the following territories for the international
relations of which it is responsible: Jersey, Southern
Rhodesia, Swaziland.
(b)
In accordance with the provisions of the second
sentence of Article VII.4 of the said Protocol, the United
Kingdom hereby extends the application of the Protocol
to the following territories for the international relations
of which it is responsible: St. Lucia, Montserrat."
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
"Subject to the reservation, hereby made, that the
provisions of Article IV of the Protocol shall not be
applicable to the United Republic of Tanzania except
within the explicit consent of the Government of the
United Republic of Tanzania."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
With the following reservations in respect of the
application, in accordance with article I of the Protocol, of
the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, done at
New York on 28 July 1951:
"The United States of America construes Article 29 of
the Convention as applying only to refugees who are
resident in the United States and reserves the right to tax
refugees who are not residents of the United States in
accordance with its general rules relating to non-resident
aliens.
The United States of America accepts the obligation of
paragraph 1 (b) of Article 24 of the Convention except
insofar as that paragraph may conflict in certain instances
with any provisions of title II (old age, survivors' and
disability insurance) or title XVIII (hospital and medical
insurance for the aged) of the Social Security Act. As to
any such provision, the United States will accord to
refugees lawfully staying in its territory treatment no less
favorable than is accorded aliens generally in the same
circumstances."
VENEZUELA (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF)
In implementing the provisions of the Protocol which
confer on refugees the most favourable treatment
accorded to nationals of a foreign country, it shall be
understood that such treatment does not include any rights
and benefits which Venezuela has granted or may grant
regarding entry into or sojourn in Venezuela territory to
nationals of countries with which Venezuela has
concluded regional or subregional integration, customs,
economic or political agreements.
The instrument of accession also contains a
reservation in respect of article IV.
Objections
(Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were made
upon accession or succession.)
BELGIUM
[See chapter V.2.]
ETHIOPIA
[See chapter V.2.]
FRANCE
[See chapter V.2.]
GERMANY8
[See chapter V.2.]
ITALY
[See chapter V.2.]
LUXEMBOURG
[See chapter V.2.]
NETHERLANDS
[See chapter V.2.]
Territorial Application
Participant
Date of receipt of the
notification
Territories
Netherlands4
29 Jul 1971
Suriname
United Kingdom of
Great Britain and
Northern Ireland4,15
4 Sep 1968
Montserrat and St. Lucia
4 Sep 1968
Exclusions: Bailiwick of Jersey, Southern Rhodesia and
Swaziland
20 Apr 1970
Bahama Islands
20 Feb 1996
Jersey
AR585
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 47 of 175
V 5. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 6
Notes:
1
Official Records of the Economic and Social Council,
Forty-first Session, Supplement No. 1A (E/4264/Add.1), p. 1.
2
Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-first
Session, Supplement No. 16 (A/6316), p. 48.
3
With the following declaration: "The Government of
Australia will not extend the provisions of the Protocol to
Papua/New Guinea."
4
In accordance with article VII (4) of the Protocol,
declarations made under article 40, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the
Convention (territorial application) by a State Party thereto
which accedes to the Protocol shall be deemed to apply in
respect of the Protocol, unless upon accession a notification to
the contrary is addressed by the State Party to the Secretary-
General. See Chapter V-2.
5
The former Yugoslavia had acceeded to the Protocol on 15
January 1968. See also note 1 under “Bosnia and Herzegovina”,
“Croatia”, “former Yugoslavia”, “Slovenia”, “The Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and “Yugoslavia” in the
“Historical Information” section in the front matter of this
volume.
6
On 27 April 1999, the Government of Portugal informed
the Secretary-General that the Protocol would apply to Macao.
Subsequently, on 18 November and 3 December 1999, the
Secretary-General received communications concerning the
status of Macao from the Governments of Portugal and China
(see also note 3 under “China” and note 1 under “Portugal”
regarding Macao in the “Historical Information” section in the
front matter of this volume). Upon resuming the exercise of
sovereignty over Macao, China notified the Secretary-General
that the Convention with the reservation made by China will
also apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region.
7
Czechoslovakia had acceeded to the Protocol on 26
November 1991. See also note 1 under “Czech Republic” and
note 1 under “Slovakia” in the “Historical Information” section
in the front matter of this volume.
8
The German Democratic Republic had acceded to the
Protocol on 4 September 1990.
See also note 2 under
“Germany” in the “Historical Information” section in the front
matter of this volume.
9
See note 1 under “Germany” regarding Berlin (West) in
the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this
volume.
10
The Kingdom of the Netherlands accedes to the said
Protocol so far as the territory of the Kingdom situated in
Europe is concerned; and, as from 1 January 1986, for Aruba.
22 June 2011
Subsequently, following a modification of the internal
constitutional relations within the Kingdom of the Netherlands
(see note 2 under "Netherlands" in Historical Information),
effective 22 June 2011, the Protocol applies to the Caribbean
part of the Netherlands (Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba).
11
Upon notifying its succession (29 November1978) the
Government of Suriname informed the Secretary-General that
the Republic of Suriname did not succeed to the reservations
formulated on 29 July 1951 by the Netherlands when the
Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees were
extended to Suriname.
12
The formality was effected by the Yemen Arab Republic.
See also note 1 under “Yemen” in the “Historical Information”
section in the front matter of this volume.
13
In a communication received on 26 April 2007, the
Government of the Republic of Guatemala notified the
Secretary-General that it has decided to withdraw the reservation
and declaration made upon accession to the Convention. The
text of the reservation and declaration withdrawn reads as
follows:
The Republic of Guatemala accedes to the Convention relating
to the Status of Refugees and its Protocol, with the reservation
that it will not apply provisions of those instruments in respect
of which the Convention allows reservations if those provisions
contravene constitutional precepts in Guatemala or norms of
public order under domestic law.
The expression "treatment as favourable as possible" in all
articles of the Convention and of the Protocol in which the
expression is used should be interpreted as not including rights
which, under law or treaty, the Republic of Guatemala has
accorded or is according to nationals of the Central American
countries or of other countries with which it has concluded or is
entering into agreements of a regional nature.
14
In a communication received on 1 September 2009, the
Government of the Republic of Korea notified the Secretary-
General that it has decided to withdraw the reservation in respect
to article 7 made upon accession to the Convention as of 8
September 2009. The text of the reservation withdrawn reads as
follows:
"The Republic of Korea declares pursuant to article 7 of the
Protocol that it is not bound by article 7 of the Convention
relating to the Status of Refugees, which provides for the
exemption of refugees from legislative reciprocity after fulfilling
the condition of three years' residence in the territory of the
Contracting States."
15
Subject to the reservation which was formulated on behalf
of the Bahama Islands in respect of the Convention relating to
the Status of Refugees.
AR586
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 48 of 175
V 5. REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS 7
AR587
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 49 of 175
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Last Updated: 04 Jul 2019
Country Status
Definition and meta-data: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/HRIndicators/MetadataRatificationStatus.pdf
Source: Database of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) https://treaties.un.org
For application of treaties to overseas, non-self-governing and other territories, shown here in grey, see https://treaties.un.org
Note: The boundaries and the names shown and the designations used on these maps do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. Final boundary between the Republic of Sudan and
the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and
Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties.
State Party (166)
Signatory (6)
No Action (25)
AR588
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 50 of 175
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Statistics Yearbook
Fiscal Year 2017
Prepared by the Planning, Analysis, & Statistics Division
Contact Information
Office of Policy
Communications and Legislative Affairs Division
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1902
Falls Church, VA 22041
(703) 305-0289
(703) 605-0365 (fax)
Disclaimer
The Statistics Yearbook has been prepared as a public service by the Executive Office for Immigration
Review and is strictly informational in nature. In no way should any information in the Statistics Yearbook, in
whole or in part, be regarded as legal advice or authority, or be understood in any way to enlarge upon, or
otherwise modify or interpret, any existing legal authority, including, but not limited to, the Immigration and
Nationality Act and Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
AR589
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 51 of 175
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A Note on Format ................................................................................................................................... 4
The Executive Office for Immigration Review .................................................................................... 5
Statistics Yearbook Key Definitions...................................................................................................... 7
Immigration Courts ................................................................................................................................ 8
Pending Caseload ................................................................................................................................. 8
Total I-862 Matters Received and Completed .................................................................................... 10
Cases Received and Completed by Type ........................................................................................... 13
I-862 Case Completions by Decision ................................................................................................. 14
I-862 ICCs by Country of Nationality ................................................................................................ 17
I-862 ICCs by Language ..................................................................................................................... 18
I-862 ICCs for Detained Cases ........................................................................................................... 19
I-862 Institutional Hearing Program Cases Received and Completed ............................................... 21
I-862 ICCs with Applications for Relief ............................................................................................ 22
Asylum Cases Received and Completed ............................................................................................ 24
Asylum Cases Completed by Decision .............................................................................................. 26
Asylum Grants by Country of Nationality ......................................................................................... 29
Convention Against Torture ............................................................................................................... 30
I-862 Applications for Relief other than Asylum ............................................................................... 32
I-862 In Absentia Orders .................................................................................................................... 33
Immigration Judge Hiring .................................................................................................................. 35
Board of Immigration Appeals ............................................................................................................ 36
Total Cases Received and Completed ................................................................................................ 36
Cases Received and Completed by Type ........................................................................................... 37
Appeals from IJ Decisions Completed by Country of Nationality ..................................................... 38
Appeals from IJ Decisions (I-862) Completed by Representation Status .......................................... 39
Case Appeals from IJ Decision (I-862 ICCs) Completed for Detained Cases ................................... 40
IJ Decisions (I-862 ICCs) Appealed ................................................................................................... 41
Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer .......................................................................... 42
Total Cases Received and Completed ................................................................................................ 42
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) .................................................................................................. 44
FOIA Receipts .................................................................................................................................... 44
AR590
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 52 of 175
LISTING OF TABLES
Table 1. Immigration Courts Pending Cases ............................................................................................ 9
Table 2. Total I-862 Immigration Court Matters Received by Court ..................................................... 11
Table 3. Total I-862 Immigration Court Matters Completed by Court and Type .................................. 12
Table 4. Immigration Court Cases Received by Case Type ................................................................... 13
Table 5. Immigration Court Initial and Subsequent Case Completions by Case Type .......................... 13
Table 6. Credible Fear (CF) and Reasonable Fear (RF) Review ICCs by Decision .............................. 15
Table 7. FY 2017 I-862 Changes of Venue and Transfers ..................................................................... 16
Table 8. I-862 ICCs by Top 25 Countries of Nationality ....................................................................... 17
Table 9. I-862 ICCs by Top 25 Languages ............................................................................................. 18
Table 10. FY 2017 I-862 Detained ICCs ................................................................................................ 20
Table 11. I-862 IHP ICCs by Decision ................................................................................................... 21
Table 12. FY 2017 I-862 ICCs with Applications for Relief ................................................................. 23
Table 13. Asylum ICCs by Court for FY 2017 ...................................................................................... 25
Table 14. Asylum Decision Rate by Immigration Court ........................................................................ 28
Table 15. Asylum Grants by Top 25 Countries of Nationality ............................................................... 29
Table 16. Convention Against Torture Cases by Decision ..................................................................... 30
Table 17. Convention Against Torture Completions by Court............................................................... 31
Table 18. I-862 Cases Grants of Relief .................................................................................................. 32
Table 19. I-862 In Absentia Orders and ICCs by Respondent Type ...................................................... 34
Table 20. BIA Receipts and Completions by Type ................................................................................ 37
Table 21. BIA Appeals from ICCs by Top 25 Countries of Nationality ................................................ 38
Table 22. BIA Detained Completions .................................................................................................... 40
AR591
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 53 of 175
LISTING OF FIGURES
Figure 1. OCIJ Pending Caseload ............................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2. BIA Pending Caseload .............................................................................................................. 8
Figure 3. Total I-862 Immigration Court Matters .................................................................................. 10
Figure 4. I-862 Immigration Court Matters Received by Type .............................................................. 10
Figure 5. I-862 Immigration Court Matters Completed by Type ........................................................... 10
Figure 6. I-862 Case Completions .......................................................................................................... 14
Figure 7. I-862 ICCs by Decision ........................................................................................................... 14
Figure 8. I-862 Subsequent Case Completions by Decision .................................................................. 14
Figure 9. Administrative Closures .......................................................................................................... 15
Figure 10. Total I-862 Changes of Venue and Transfers ....................................................................... 15
Figure 11. I-862 ICCs by Nationality ..................................................................................................... 17
Figure 12. I-862 ICCs by Language ....................................................................................................... 18
Figure 13. I-862 ICCs by Detention Status ............................................................................................ 19
Figure 14. I-862 Standard Detained ICCs .............................................................................................. 19
Figure 15. I-862 IHP Receipts and ICCs ................................................................................................ 21
Figure 16. I-862 ICCs by Application Filling Status .............................................................................. 22
Figure 17. Asylum Receipts ................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 18. Asylum Receipts and ICCs ................................................................................................... 24
Figure 19. Asylum ICCs by Decision ..................................................................................................... 26
Figure 20. Affirmative and Defensive Asylum ICCs by Decision ......................................................... 26
Figure 21. Administrative Closures of Asylum Cases............................................................................ 27
Figure 22. Asylum and Withholding of Removal ICCs by Decision ..................................................... 27
Figure 23. Withholding of Removal ICCs by Decision ......................................................................... 27
Figure 24. Asylum Grants by Country of Nationality ............................................................................ 29
Figure 25. I-862 In Absentia Rates ......................................................................................................... 33
Figure 26. Immigration Judge Hiring ..................................................................................................... 35
Figure 27. Total BIA Cases Received and Completed ........................................................................... 36
Figure 28. BIA Receipts and Completions by Case Type ...................................................................... 37
Figure 29. Completed Appeals from IJ Decisions by Nationality .......................................................... 38
Figure 30. Completed Appeals from IJ Decisions (I-862 Cases) by Representation Status .................. 39
Figure 31. Complete Case Appeals from I-862 ICCs by Detention Status ............................................ 40
Figure 32. I-862 ICCs Appealed to BIA ................................................................................................. 41
Figure 33. OCAHO Receipts and Completions ...................................................................................... 43
Figure 34. OCAHO Receipts and Completions by Type ....................................................................... 43
Figure 35. FOIA Receipts ....................................................................................................................... 44
AR592
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 54 of 175
A NOTE ON FORMAT
Since publication of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) fiscal year (FY) 2016
Statistics Yearbook, EOIR has reassessed the format of its annual yearbook, leading to some delay in
the release of the FY 2017 Statistics Yearbook. For the FY 2017 Yearbook, EOIR has improved the
graphics and the layout to make the data easier to understand. It has also endeavored to improve the
precision of reported statistics and their utility for operations and public interest. Further, EOIR’s
ongoing public release of data reports, many of which have already reported FY 2017 data contained in
the Yearbook, and the periodic public release of EOIR’s overall Case Data file, which contains almost
all data from FY 2017 that is otherwise presented in the Yearbook, potentially render the release of an
annual yearbook obsolete. Nevertheless, EOIR anticipates releasing the FY 2018 Statistics Yearbook
on a much more expeditious timetable, though its primary commitment will continue to be updates to
its online data.
Please refer any questions on these improvements to EOIR’s Office of Policy, Communications and
Legislative Affairs Division.
AR593
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 55 of 175
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
EOIR is responsible for adjudicating immigration cases. On behalf of the Attorney General, EOIR
interprets and administers federal immigration laws and regulations through immigration court cases,
appellate reviews, and administrative hearings in certain types of immigration-related cases. EOIR
consists of three adjudicatory bodies: The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ), the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA), and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO).
OCIJ provides overall program direction and establishes priorities for 338 immigration judges (IJ)
located in 61 immigration courts throughout the nation. The BIA hears appeals from certain decisions
rendered by IJs and by district directors of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in a wide variety
of cases. OCAHO conducts hearings in civil penalty cases arising from the unlawful employment of
aliens, unfair immigration-related employment practices, and civil document fraud.
Although this Statistics Yearbook addresses each of EOIR’s three adjudicatory bodies, most of the data
presented comes from immigration court cases. Most immigration court cases involve removal
proceedings. A removal proceeding has two parts. First, an immigration judge assesses whether an
alien is removable as charged under the applicable law. If an immigration judge determines that the
alien is not removable, then the immigration judge will terminate proceedings.1 If the immigration
judge sustains the charge or charges of removability, proceedings continue. A finding of removability
by itself never guarantees that an alien will be ordered removed or that the alien will actually be
removed. Rather, if the alien is found removable, the judge must also make a second determination as
to whether the alien is eligible for any relief or protection that would allow the alien to remain in the
United States. Examples of such relief or protection include asylum, withholding of removal,
protection under the Convention Against Torture, adjustment of status, cancellation of removal for
lawful permanent residents, cancellation of removal for certain non-permanent residents, and certain
waivers provided by the Immigration and Nationality Act.2
The removal proceeding begins when the DHS (either U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), or U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)) serves an individual with a charging document, called a Notice to Appear (NTA), and files it
with an immigration court.
Aliens in removal proceedings, called respondents, have a right to legal representation at no expense to
the government. EOIR also provides a list of pro bono legal service providers to any respondent who
appears in removal proceedings without representation.
1 Although applicable regulations distinguish between the dismissal of proceedings and the termination of proceedings, EOIR
classifies both of them as “terminations” for statistical purposes because the outcomes are substantively identical.
2 Although relief (e.g. asylum) and protection (e.g. withholding of removal) are legally distinct outcomes, EOIR classifies
both of them as “relief” for statistical purposes because the outcomes are similar in that for both, an alien is generally allowed
to remain in the United States. Additionally, voluntary departure is a form of relief from removal, but it carries an alternate
order of removal if the departure is not timely effectuated. Consequently, EOIR classifies it as a separate outcome for
statistical purposes and does not count it as either relief or an order of removal.
AR594
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 56 of 175
During the removal proceeding, the immigration court schedules an initial hearing, referred to as a master
calendar hearing, before an immigration judge. At this hearing, the immigration judge informs the
respondent of his or her rights and addresses representation. The judge may also take pleadings,
determine removability, and ascertain apparent eligibility for any relief or protection provided for by
law. If a judge finds an alien removable and the alien wishes to apply for relief or protection from
removal, the judge will schedule an individual merits hearing on the alien’s application where both
parties (the respondent and DHS) may present arguments and evidence regarding that application. If the
immigration judge finds the alien eligible for relief or protection from removal, the judge will then grant
the application.
If an immigration judge finds an alien is removable and ineligible for any relief or protection from
removal, the judge will order the alien removed. ICE is then responsible for any subsequent detention
and removal activities. The issuance of a removal order does not guarantee the actual physical removal
of an alien from the United States.
Within 30 days of the immigration judge’s decision in a removal case, either party or both parties may
appeal the decision to the BIA. If the BIA decision is adverse to the alien, the alien may file a petition
for review of that decision with the appropriate federal circuit court of appeals within 30 days.
In certain circumstances, a party to a removal case may also file a motion with the immigration court to
reconsider or reopen the case after an immigration judge or the BIA has rendered a decision.
In certain circumstances, for aliens detained by DHS or aliens recently released from custody by DHS,
an immigration judge may consider requests to redetermine the conditions of custody or to ameliorate
the conditions of release. Any alien may make such a request, and an immigration judge will preside
over a hearing on the request, commonly called a “bond hearing.” Whether an immigration judge grants
the request ultimately depends on the facts and applicable law of each case. Either party or both parties
may appeal the immigration judge’s bond decision to the BIA.
AR595
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 57 of 175
STATISTICS YEARBOOK KEY DEFINITIONS
The following definitions are applicable to the FY 2017 Yearbook. Please note that prior Yearbooks
may have utilized different definitions and that some terms may have different usages or definitions
outside the Yearbook context.
Immigration court matters include cases, bond redeterminations, and motions to reopen, reconsider,
and recalendar.
Immigration court cases include twelve case types, divided into four categories. I-862 case types
include removal, deportation, and exclusion cases. I-863 case types include asylum-only, withholding-
only, credible fear review, reasonable fear review, and claimed status review cases. Other case types
include rescission, non-removal Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA),
departure control, and continued detention review cases.
Immigration court receipts is the total number of charging documents, bond redeterminations, and
motions to reopen, reconsider, and recalendar received within the reporting period.
Immigration court matter completions is the total number of immigration judge decisions on cases
and bond redeterminations, plus the total number of denied motions to reopen, reconsider, and
recalendar.
Initial case completion (ICC) is the first dispositive decision rendered by an immigration judge. For
instance, an I-862 removal case is completed by an order of removal, relief, voluntary departure,
termination, or other. An order granting a continuance, changing venue, or administratively closing a
case is not a dispositive decision and, thus, does not constitute a case completion.
Subsequent case completion refers to any dispositive decision by an immigration judge after an ICC.
AR596
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 58 of 175
IMMIGRATION COURTS
PENDING CASELOAD
Figure 1. The number
of pending immigration
court cases has grown
by 84 percent since the
end of FY 2013, and by
26 percent since the
end of FY 2016.
Figure 1. OCIJ Pending Caseload
Figure 2. The BIA’s
pending caseload
decreased 32 percent
from FY 2013 to FY
2017.
Figure 2. BIA Pending Caseload
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Pending
356,060
430,062
459,973
521,329
656,067
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Pending
22,944
21,872
16,975
13,955
15,638
AR597
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 59 of 175
Table 1. Immigration Courts Pending Cases
Immigration Court
Pending Cases as of 9/30/2017
Adelanto
1,258
Arlington
38,966
Atlanta
19,159
Aurora
417
Baltimore
29,516
Batavia
317
Bloomington
6,210
Boston
22,505
Buffalo
1,466
Charlotte
12,981
Chicago
29,197
Cleveland
7,835
Dallas
16,940
Denver
10,660
Detroit
4,385
El Paso
4,879
El Paso SPC
440
Elizabeth
672
Eloy
1,096
Fishkill
119
Florence
589
Harlingen
2,498
Hartford
4,019
Honolulu
628
Houston
48,872
Houston SPC
1,219
Imperial
3,444
Kansas City
6,353
Krome
722
Las Vegas
3,652
LaSalle
318
Los Angeles (N)
61,885
Los Angeles (D)
526
Louisville
4,631
Memphis
10,858
Miami
32,486
New Orleans
8,483
New York City
84,090
Newark
33,532
Oakdale
268
Omaha
8,653
Orlando
10,410
Otay Mesa
808
Otero
196
Pearsall
765
Philadelphia
9,729
Phoenix
7,287
Port Isabel
527
Portland
4,215
Saipan
98
Salt Lake City
2,612
San Antonio
27,484
San Diego
4,530
San Francisco
47,878
San Juan
219
Seattle
8,789
Stewart
807
Tacoma
980
Tucson
723
Ulster
156
Varick
662
York
448
Total
656,067
AR598
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 60 of 175
TOTAL I-862 MATTERS RECEIVED AND COMPLETED
Figure 3. The number
of I-862 matters the
immigration courts
received increased by
28 percent between FY
2016 and FY 2017. The
number of I-862 matters
the immigration courts
completed increased by
17 percent from FY
2016 to FY 2017.
Figure 3. Total I-862 Immigration Court Matters
Figure 4. New NTAs
constitute the bulk of
the courts’ work.
Figure 4. I-862 Immigration Court Matters Received by Type
Figure 5. The majority
of matters completed
are I-862 ICCs.
Figure 5. I-862 Immigration Court Matters Completed by Type
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Receipts
271,726
307,017
274,920
316,343
405,947
Completions 217,123
203,325
204,909
207,230
243,128
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
New NTAs 193,690
226,670
189,676
224,963
291,258
Bonds
57,673
60,476
60,067
63,421
78,483
Motions
20,363
19,871
25,177
27,959
36,206
Total
271,726
307,017
274,920
316,343
405,947
0
40,000
80,000
120,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Initial Case Completions 137,329 124,649 127,452 128,201 149,581
Subsequent Case
Completions
17,511
14,448
13,650
12,433
10,164
Bonds
57,531
59,852
59,543
62,197
77,278
Motions (Not Granted)
4,752
4,376
4,264
4,399
6,105
Total
217,123 203,325 204,909 207,230 243,128
AR599
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 61 of 175
Table 2. Total I-862 Immigration Court Matters Received by Court
Total Matters
New NTAs
Bonds
Motions
Adelanto
7,664
8,486
3,681
4,754
51
11%
Arlington
13,547
15,488
12,317
1,492
1,679
14%
Atlanta
8,524
11,714
8,625
2,064
1,025
37%
Aurora
3,044
3,848
2,016
1,776
56
26%
Baltimore
8,825
14,583
12,880
750
953
65%
Batavia
2,981
2,491
1,226
1,239
26
-16%
Bloomington
3,192
4,748
2,740
1,369
639
49%
Boston
7,791
11,042
8,396
1,499
1,147
42%
Buffalo
534
782
588
0
194
46%
Charlotte
5,880
9,449
8,416
479
554
61%
Chicago
9,787
11,509
7,718
2,700
1,091
18%
Cleveland
3,006
4,112
2,859
806
447
37%
Dallas
11,501
13,236
11,393
1,183
660
15%
Denver
1,824
2,714
2,053
241
420
49%
Detroit
2,697
3,753
2,210
1,197
346
39%
El Paso
1,091
1,741
1,422
38
281
60%
El Paso SPC
3,950
3,462
2,171
1,248
43
-12%
Elizabeth
5,442
4,931
2,336
2,551
44
-9%
Eloy
7,154
8,040
3,582
4,383
75
12%
Fishkill
170
169
157
0
12
-1%
Florence
5,300
3,991
2,486
1,448
57
-25%
Harlingen
3,554
3,429
2,448
0
981
-4%
Hartford
1,586
2,648
2,202
244
202
67%
Honolulu
413
591
422
122
47
43%
Houston
13,116
14,224
12,994
3
1,227
8%
Houston SPC
10,454
14,363
8,859
5,279
225
37%
Imperial
3,869
4,311
2,340
1,882
89
11%
Kansas City
3,337
5,254
3,538
1,329
387
57%
Krome
6,750
8,507
4,349
4,032
126
26%
Las Vegas
3,179
4,447
2,817
1,166
464
40%
LaSalle
4,979
5,998
3,071
2,902
25
20%
Los Angeles (N)
16,209
26,188
21,300
14
4,874
62%
Los Angeles (D)
4,786
4,697
1,939
2,721
37
-2%
Louisville
1,325
1,860
1,572
7
281
40%
Memphis
5,143
6,430
5,278
41
1,111
25%
Miami
11,921
16,575
13,918
53
2,604
39%
New Orleans
3,866
5,180
4,616
0
564
34%
New York City
18,445
27,131
23,895
5
3,231
47%
Newark
5,163
8,708
7,872
2
834
69%
Oakdale
4,206
4,782
2,405
2,329
48
14%
Omaha
2,993
4,504
3,283
745
476
50%
Orlando
5,271
8,241
6,012
1,100
1,129
56%
Otay Mesa
3,284
4,938
2,145
2,751
42
50%
Otero
350
1,904
1,179
715
10
444%
Pearsall
6,658
8,168
5,366
2,764
38
23%
Philadelphia
3,036
4,013
3,493
2
518
32%
Phoenix
2,721
3,335
2,378
3
954
23%
Port Isabel
3,895
4,062
2,605
1,394
63
4%
Portland
1,558
1,357
1,108
13
236
11%
Saipan
21
115
111
1
3
448%
Salt Lake City
2,004
1,258
887
110
261
-56%
San Antonio
6,146
7,999
5,062
1,613
1,324
30%
San Diego
2,752
2,842
2,125
9
708
3%
San Francisco
17,127
20,328
15,162
3,171
1,995
19%
San Juan
251
336
135
17
184
34%
Seattle
2,687
2,757
2,164
0
593
3%
Stewart
4,295
7,769
5,021
2,669
79
81%
Tacoma
6,556
6,648
3,185
3,418
45
1%
Tucson
680
608
489
0
119
-11%
Ulster
300
241
222
0
19
-20%
Varick
3,133
3,253
1,451
1,721
81
4%
York
4,420
5,659
2,568
2,919
172
28%
Total
316,343
405,947
291,258
78,483
36,206
22%
Key
25%+ growth
in Total Matters
Received
25%+ decrease
in Total Matters
Received
FY 2017
Rate of
Change:
Total Matters
Immigration
Court
FY 2016
Total
Matters
AR600
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 62 of 175
Table 3. Total I-862 Immigration Court Matters Completed by Court and Type
Total
Matters
Initial Case
Completions
Subsequent Case
Completions
Bonds
Motions Not
Granted
Adelanto
5,227
6,636
1,873
70
4,677
16
27%
Arlington
6,877
6,509
4,628
313
1,404
164
-5%
Atlanta
7,185
7,473
4,873
213
2,015
372
4%
Aurora
2,108
2,856
1,013
30
1,794
19
35%
Baltimore
4,645
4,264
3,066
292
757
149
-8%
Batavia
1,903
1,837
562
25
1,244
6
-3%
Bloomington
2,059
2,795
1,358
84
1,235
118
36%
Boston
4,579
4,851
2,882
384
1,520
65
6%
Buffalo
710
601
497
65
0
39
-15%
Charlotte
4,652
4,505
3,731
203
479
92
-3%
Chicago
5,705
7,879
4,688
378
2,699
114
38%
Cleveland
2,005
2,439
1,522
104
776
37
22%
Dallas
8,659
8,148
6,574
250
1,140
184
-6%
Denver
735
1,781
1,336
151
229
65
142%
Detroit
2,097
2,959
1,629
92
1,138
100
41%
El Paso
938
1,421
1,214
60
38
109
51%
El Paso SPC
2,793
2,677
1,421
30
1,203
23
-4%
Elizabeth
3,780
4,043
1,441
54
2,527
21
7%
Eloy
5,332
6,685
2,174
48
4,436
27
25%
Fishkill
125
163
150
6
0
7
30%
Florence
3,126
2,362
924
21
1,394
23
-24%
Harlingen
2,338
2,535
1,794
206
0
535
8%
Hartford
1,214
1,263
898
91
240
34
4%
Honolulu
521
634
485
33
113
3
22%
Houston
6,137
7,302
6,776
355
3
168
19%
Houston SPC
6,037
9,564
4,513
55
4,947
49
58%
Imperial
2,369
2,434
519
25
1,873
17
3%
Kansas City
2,156
3,238
1,796
109
1,282
51
50%
Krome
5,083
7,062
3,002
86
3,899
75
39%
Las Vegas
2,646
3,766
2,338
216
1,147
65
42%
LaSalle
3,935
5,016
2,111
30
2,860
15
27%
Los Angeles (N)
11,641
11,807
9,761
1,312
14
720
1%
Los Angeles (D)
3,866
4,265
1,372
63
2,815
15
10%
Louisville
816
845
751
33
6
55
4%
Memphis
2,990
3,636
3,267
153
42
174
22%
Miami
5,833
7,950
6,814
695
51
390
36%
New Orleans
2,124
2,698
2,496
121
0
81
27%
New York City
14,662
12,887
11,445
1,059
1
382
-12%
Newark
3,179
3,176
2,801
253
9
113
0%
Oakdale
2,907
3,850
1,460
21
2,334
35
32%
Omaha
1,611
2,625
1,697
122
765
41
63%
Orlando
3,105
5,333
3,780
359
1,056
138
72%
Otay Mesa
2,094
3,587
764
31
2,772
20
71%
Otero
238
1,804
1,116
5
679
4
658%
Pearsall
3,533
4,137
1,420
17
2,685
15
17%
Philadelphia
1,659
1,871
1,653
155
2
61
13%
Phoenix
1,797
2,320
2,093
159
3
65
29%
Port Isabel
2,450
2,599
1,160
36
1,367
36
6%
Portland
785
614
530
63
13
8
-22%
Saipan
21
25
18
4
1
2
19%
Salt Lake City
1,714
1,286
991
89
148
58
-25%
San Antonio
2,904
5,226
3,157
262
1,481
326
80%
San Diego
1,306
1,708
1,432
115
6
155
31%
San Francisco
10,357
10,115
6,267
392
3,268
188
-2%
San Juan
193
158
105
24
17
12
-18%
Seattle
2,115
1,806
1,540
167
0
99
-15%
Stewart
3,799
6,979
4,153
86
2,694
46
84%
Tacoma
5,053
5,866
2,278
39
3,530
19
16%
Tucson
679
729
672
43
0
14
7%
Ulster
204
218
199
9
0
10
7%
Varick
2,468
2,560
892
53
1,598
17
4%
York
3,451
4,750
1,709
145
2,852
44
38%
Total
207,230
243,128
149,581
10,164
77,278
6,105
17%
Immigration
Court
FY 2016
Total
Matters
FY 2017
Rate of
Change:
Total Matters
Key
25%+ growth
in Total Matters
Completed
25%+ decrease
in Total Matters
Completed
AR601
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 63 of 175
CASES RECEIVED AND COMPLETED BY TYPE
Table 4. Immigration Court Cases Received by Case Type
Table 5. Immigration Court Initial and Subsequent Case Completions by Case Type
Type of Case
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Removal
193,689
226,669
189,674
224,962
291,258
Credible Fear
1,770
6,507
6,644
7,464
6,532
Withholding Only
2,328
3,145
3,061
3,261
3,388
Reasonable Fear
1,156
1,778
2,608
2,521
2,476
Asylum Only
393
294
255
227
399
Rescission
46
31
45
27
37
Claimed Status
31
22
21
11
6
Continued Detention Review
0
3
2
1
0
Deportation
1
1
2
1
0
NACARA
2
4
1
0
0
Total
199,416
238,454
202,313
238,475
304,096
Initial
Subsequent
Initial
Subsequent
Initial
Subsequent
Initial
Subsequent
Initial
Subsequent
Deportation
601
1,592
472
1,157
452
1,100
477
1,082
381
818
Exclusion
48
154
35
103
19
103
35
83
22
62
Removal
136,680
15,765
124,142
13,188
126,981
12,447
127,689
11,268
149,178
9,284
Credible Fear
1,726
0
6,353
0
6,624
2
7,492
0
6,533
0
Reasonable Fear
1,135
0
1,707
0
2,559
0
2,536
2
2,437
0
Claimed Status
28
2
22
0
19
0
14
1
4
1
Asylum Only
307
72
296
75
230
49
200
51
261
64
Rescission
35
5
28
3
26
5
28
2
33
1
Continued Detention Review
2
0
2
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
NACARA
2
5
1
1
2
0
1
1
3
2
Withholding Only
1,300
64
2,553
107
2,209
127
2,501
132
2,865
163
Total
141,864
17,659
135,611
14,634
139,124
13,833
140,975
12,622
161,717
10,395
FY 2016
FY 2017
Type of Case
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
AR602
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 64 of 175
I-862 CASE COMPLETIONS BY DECISION
Figure 6. I-862 ICCs increased
17 percent from FY 2016 to
FY 2017.
Figure 6. I-862 Case Completions
Figure 7. All I-862 case
outcomes except termination
increased in FY 2017.
Figure 7. I-862 ICCs by Decision
Figure 8. For I-862 cases,
subsequent case completions
have decreased by about seven
percent between FY 2013 and
FY 2017.
Figure 8. I-862 Subsequent Case Completions by Decision
0
40,000
80,000
120,000
160,000
200,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Subsequent Case
Completion
17,511
14,448
13,650
12,433
10,164
Initial Case Completion 137,329 124,649 127,452 128,201 149,581
Total
154,840 139,097 141,102 140,634 159,745
0
40,000
80,000
120,000
160,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Other
499
366
436
481
514
Removal
75,384
72,715
75,727
75,092
97,457
Voluntary Departure
17,902
13,666
9,911
9,055
13,603
Relief
24,456
20,297
17,614
17,248
19,456
Termination
19,088
17,605
23,764
26,325
18,551
Total
137,329
124,649
127,452
128,201
149,581
0
4,000
8,000
12,000
16,000
20,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Removal
6,781
5,824
6,049
4,626
3,988
Termination
5,381
4,625
4,699
5,006
3,286
Relief
3,905
2,897
2,204
2,129
2,166
Voluntary Departure
1,192
836
507
459
540
Other
252
266
191
213
184
Total
17,511
14,448
13,650
12,433
10,164
AR603
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 65 of 175
Figure 9. Administrative
closures decreased by about 40
percent from FY 2016 to FY
2017.
Figure 9. Administrative Closures
Figure 10. For I-862 cases,
changes of venue have
increased 35 percent since FY
2013 and transfers have
increased 23 percent in the
same period.
Figure 10. Total I-862 Changes of Venue and Transfers
Table 6. Credible Fear (CF) and Reasonable Fear (RF) Review
ICCs by Decision
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Administrative Closure
32,545
34,422
46,214
53,736
32,394
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Changes of Venue
50,909
64,520
50,303
56,239
68,949
Transfers
37,826
40,895
37,662
41,868
46,584
Total
88,735
105,415
87,965
98,107
115,533
CF
RF
CF
RF
CF
RF
CF
RF
CF
RF
Affirmed DHS Decision
1,503
977
5,232
1,439
5,219
2,053
5,333
1,915
4,851
1,811
Vacated DHS Decision
206
131
1,055
230
1,347
451
2,088
571
1,647
588
Other
18
30
67
43
65
64
74
57
38
45
Total
1,727
1,138
6,354
1,712
6,631
2,568
7,495
2,543
6,536
2,444
FY 16
FY 17
Disposition
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
AR604
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 66 of 175
Table 7. FY 2017 I-862 Changes of Venue and Transfers
Immigration Court Changes of Venue
Transfers
Total
Adelanto
2,327
30
2,357
Arlington
2,154
2,053
4,207
Atlanta
2,543
2,961
5,504
Aurora
1,080
18
1,098
Baltimore
915
31
946
Batavia
394
442
836
Bloomington
216
668
884
Boston
432
981
1,413
Buffalo
516
110
626
Charlotte
660
37
697
Chicago
1,845
2,042
3,887
Cleveland
324
507
831
Dallas
593
2,068
2,661
Denver
697
170
867
Detroit
303
627
930
El Paso
1,648
243
1,891
El Paso SPC
20
1,188
1,208
Elizabeth
24
1,406
1,430
Eloy
1,933
1
1,934
Fishkill
28
25
53
Florence
1,887
11
1,898
Harlingen
3,675
232
3,907
Hartford
227
208
435
Honolulu
24
50
74
Houston
7,335
2,706
10,041
Houston SPC
210
5,556
5,766
Imperial
1,949
2,146
4,095
Kansas City
602
797
1,399
Krome
1,765
509
2,274
Las Vegas
486
669
1,155
LaSalle
1,219
186
1,405
Los Angeles (N)
3,598
317
3,915
Los Angeles (D)
148
1,367
1,515
Louisville
197
210
407
Memphis
559
831
1,390
Miami
1,839
23
1,862
New Orleans
1,496
10
1,506
New York City
3,061
232
3,293
Newark
1,868
765
2,633
Oakdale
826
454
1,280
Omaha
250
657
907
Orlando
781
464
1,245
Otay Mesa
281
1,274
1,555
Otero
6
407
413
Pearsall
444
3,775
4,219
Philadelphia
626
294
920
Phoenix
1,443
21
1,464
Port Isabel
36
1,242
1,278
Portland
265
60
325
Saipan
0
0
0
Salt Lake City
331
211
542
San Antonio
5,723
1,757
7,480
San Diego
1,635
279
1,914
San Francisco
1,436
2,375
3,811
San Juan
57
9
66
Seattle
376
3
379
Stewart
926
0
926
Tacoma
1,249
1
1,250
Tucson
181
2
183
Ulster
64
32
96
Varick
123
505
628
York
1,093
329
1,422
Total
68,949
46,584
115,533
AR605
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 67 of 175
I-862 ICCS BY COUNTRY OF NATIONALITY
EOIR IJs hear cases from many different nationalities each year.
Figure 11. About 75 percent
of I-862 ICCs in FY 2017 were
cases of nationals from
Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras,
or El Salvador.
Table 8. In the last five years,
Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras,
El Salvador, China, Ecuador,
Dominican Republic, Cuba,
and India were nine of the top
ten countries of nationality.
Figure 11. I-862 ICCs by Nationality
Table 8. I-862 ICCs by Top 25 Countries of Nationality
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Initial Case Completions
Mexico
47,309
Guatemala
25,016
Honduras
20,834
El Salvador
19,633
Other
36,789
Rank
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
1
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
2
Guatemala
Guatemala
Honduras
Guatemala
Guatemala
3
El Salvador
Honduras
Guatemala
Honduras
Honduras
4
Honduras
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
5
China
China
China
China
China
6
Cuba
Cuba
Ecuador
Ecuador
Haiti
7
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
8
Jamaica
Ecuador
India
Cuba
Dominican Republic
9
Ecuador
India
Cuba
India
Cuba
10
India
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
India
11
Colombia
Colombia
Haiti
Colombia
Brazil
12
Philippines
Haiti
Colombia
Haiti
Jamaica
13
Haiti
Philippines
Peru
Brazil
Colombia
14
Brazil
Peru
Philippines
Somalia
Nicaragua
15
Peru
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Romania
16
Nicaragua
Brazil
Brazil
Peru
Peru
17
Nigeria
Nepal
Somalia
Ghana
Philippines
18
Russia
Nigeria
Nigeria
Philippines
Nepal
19
Nepal
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Nigeria
Pakistan
20
Pakistan
Russia
Nepal
Pakistan
Ghana
21
Ethiopia
Egypt
Bangladesh
Nepal
Nigeria
22
Kenya
Pakistan
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Eritrea
23
Canada
Vietnam
Ghana
Canada
Venezuela
24
Vietnam
Kenya
Vietnam
Romania
Canada
25
Egypt
Canada
Canada
Egypt
Cameroon
AR606
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 68 of 175
I-862 ICCS BY LANGUAGE
In parallel to the many nationalities that come before IJs, there are similarly hundreds of languages in
which hearings are conducted. EOIR provides interpretation services for all aliens in proceedings as
appropriate.
Figure 12. About 85 percent
of I-862 ICCs in FY 2017 were
cases of Spanish- or English-
speaking aliens.
Table 9. In the last five years,
seven of the top ten languages
were Spanish, English,
Mandarin, Creole, Punjabi,
Arabic, or Russian.
Figure 12. I-862 ICCs by Language
Table 9. I-862 ICCs by Top 25 Languages
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Initial Case Completions
Spanish
111,321
English
16,383
Mandarin
4,486
Other
17,391
Rank
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
1
Spanish
Spanish
Spanish
Spanish
Spanish
2
English
English
English
English
English
3
Mandarin
Mandarin
Mandarin
Mandarin
Mandarin
4
Unknown Language
Unknown Language
Unknown Language
Unknown Language
Creole
5
Russian
Russian
Arabic
Arabic
Unknown Language
6
Arabic
Arabic
Russian
Punjabi
Punjabi
7
Punjabi
Punjabi
Punjabi
Russian
Portuguese
8
Creole
Creole
Creole
Portuguese
Arabic
9
Portuguese
French
Somali
Mam
Russian
10
French
Portuguese
French
Creole
Mam
11
Korean
Korean
Portuguese
Somali
French
12
Foo Chow
Nepali
Quiche
Quiche
Quiche
13
Nepali
Somali
Nepali
French
Nepali
14
Amharic
Foo Chow
Bengali
Nepali
Tigrigna - Eritrean
15
Tagalog
Amharic
Mam
Foo Chow
Romanian-Moldovan
16
Romanian-Moldovan
Vietnamese
Foo chow
Bengali
Konjobal
17
Vietnamese
Gujarati
Korean
Amharic
Somali
18
Gujarati
Quiche
Amharic
Korean
Bengali
19
Tigrigna - Eritrean
Mam
Vietnamese
Tigrigna - Eritrean
Urdu
20
Urdu
Tagalog
Tigrigna - Eritrean
Konjobal
Foo Chow
21
Indonesian
Urdu
Gujarati
Romanian-Moldovan
Korean
22
Armenian
Albanian
Albanian
Urdu
Albanian
23
Somali
Armenian
Konjobal
Albanian
Amharic
24
Albanian
Indonesian
Tagalog
Vietnamese
Vietnamese
25
Tamil
Tigrigna - Eritrean
Urdu
Armenian
Gujarati
AR607
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 69 of 175
I-862 ICCS FOR DETAINED CASES
Detention locations include DHS Service Processing Centers (SPC), DHS contract detention facilities,
state and local government jails, and Bureau of Prisons institutions. For the purpose of Figure 13,
Institutional Hearing Program (IHP) cases are considered detained cases as are cases of
unaccompanied alien children (UAC) in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Figure 13. Detained I-862
ICCs increased 36 percent
from FY 2016 to FY 2017.
Figure 13. I-862 ICCs by Detention Status
Figure 14. The number of
standard detained completions
– aliens at least 18 years of age
that are not at an IHP location,
are not UAC or in HHS
custody, and are not
considered to have competency
concerns or to be subject to the
Franco litigation – have
increased 39 percent from FY
2016 to FY 2017.
Figure 14. I-862 Standard Detained ICCs
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Initial Case Completions
for Detained Aliens
58,813
51,145
40,358
39,912
54,098
Initial Case Completions
for All Aliens
137,329 124,649 127,452 128,201 149,581
Percent Detained
43%
41%
32%
31%
36%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Completions
49,121
42,605
32,104
30,749
42,881
AR608
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 70 of 175
Table 10. FY 2017 I-862 Detained ICCs
Immigration Court Completions
Adelanto
1,848
Arlington
1,132
Atlanta
2,072
Aurora
1,001
Baltimore
423
Batavia
539
Bloomington
735
Boston
804
Buffalo
0
Charlotte
8
Chicago
1,734
Cleveland
547
Dallas
3,095
Denver
91
Detroit
905
El Paso
113
El Paso SPC
1,421
Elizabeth
1,439
Eloy
2,152
Fishkill
150
Florence
921
Harlingen
62
Hartford
228
Honolulu
145
Houston
46
Houston SPC
4,513
Imperial
338
Kansas City
687
Krome
2,966
Las Vegas
1,036
LaSalle
2,106
Los Angeles (N)
58
Los Angeles (D)
1,368
Louisville
0
Memphis
26
Miami
198
New Orleans
5
New York City
6
Newark
2
Oakdale
1,459
Omaha
695
Orlando
729
Otay Mesa
750
Otero
1,115
Pearsall
1,419
Philadelphia
11
Phoenix
69
Port Isabel
1,158
Portland
5
Saipan
3
Salt Lake City
179
San Antonio
464
San Diego
29
San Francisco
1,491
San Juan
26
Seattle
0
Stewart
4,143
Tacoma
2,276
Tucson
379
Ulster
199
Varick
876
York
1,703
Total
54,098
AR609
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 71 of 175
I-862 INSTITUTIONAL HEARING PROGRAM CASES RECEIVED AND COMPLETED
IHP is a cooperative effort between EOIR, DHS, and various federal, state, and municipal corrections
agencies. IJs and court staff either travel to IHP facilities to conduct IHP hearings, or the IJs conduct
the hearings by video teleconferencing.
Figure 15. New IHP case
receipts declined in FY 2017.
Figure 15. I-862 IHP Receipts and ICCs
Table 11. I-862 IHP ICCs by Decision
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
New NTAs
4,048
3,916
2,914
3,568
2,581
Initial Case Completions
3,385
3,191
2,714
2,973
2,463
Disposition
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Removal
3,277
3,075
2,573
2,726
2,333
Voluntary Departure
2
3
7
28
10
Termination
80
86
91
94
53
Relief
23
27
39
117
63
Other
3
0
4
8
4
Total Completions
3,385
3,191
2,714
2,973
2,463
AR610
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 72 of 175
I-862 ICCS WITH APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF
Figure 16. The percent
of completed I-862
cases with applications
for relief has been
roughly constant over
the past five years.
Figure 16. I-862 ICCs by Application Filling Status
37%
36%
32%
35%
37%
63%
64%
68%
65%
63%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
With Applications
50,834
44,974
40,789
45,094
56,035
Without Applications
86,495
79,675
86,663
83,107
93,546
Total
137,329
124,649
127,452
128,201
149,581
AR611
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 73 of 175
Table 12. FY 2017 I-862 ICCs with Applications for Relief
Immigration Court
Initial Case
Completions
Number of Completions
with Applications
Percent with
Applications
Key
Adelanto
1,873
837
45%
Arlington
4,628
1,644
36%
Atlanta
4,873
1,050
22%
Aurora
1,013
320
32%
Baltimore
3,066
981
32%
Batavia
562
178
32%
Bloomington
1,358
490
36%
Boston
2,882
1,496
52%
Buffalo
497
208
42%
Charlotte
3,731
675
18%
Chicago
4,688
1,530
33%
Cleveland
1,522
535
35%
Dallas
6,574
1,243
19%
Denver
1,336
491
37%
Detroit
1,629
664
41%
El Paso
1,214
287
24%
El Paso SPC
1,421
208
15%
Elizabeth
1,441
698
48%
Eloy
2,174
526
24%
Fishkill
150
32
21%
Florence
924
224
24%
Harlingen
1,794
540
30%
Hartford
898
394
44%
Honolulu
485
315
65%
Houston
6,776
2,735
40%
Houston SPC
4,513
991
22%
Imperial
519
190
37%
Kansas City
1,796
529
29%
Krome
3,002
1,283
43%
Las Vegas
2,338
1,054
45%
LaSalle
2,111
346
16%
Los Angeles (N)
9,761
4,663
48%
Los Angeles (D)
1,372
511
37%
Louisville
751
48
6%
Memphis
3,267
1,069
33%
Miami
6,814
2,531
37%
New Orleans
2,496
337
14%
New York City
11,445
7,622
67%
Newark
2,801
1,064
38%
Oakdale
1,460
265
18%
Omaha
1,697
640
38%
Orlando
3,780
1,815
48%
Otay Mesa
764
281
37%
Otero
1,116
298
27%
Pearsall
1,420
436
31%
Philadelphia
1,653
680
41%
Phoenix
2,093
1,040
50%
Port Isabel
1,160
602
52%
Portland
530
347
65%
Saipan
18
2
11%
Salt Lake City
991
477
48%
San Antonio
3,157
890
28%
San Diego
1,432
451
31%
San Francisco
6,267
3,199
51%
San Juan
105
42
40%
Seattle
1,540
970
63%
Stewart
4,153
710
17%
Tacoma
2,278
959
42%
Tucson
672
233
35%
Ulster
199
66
33%
Varick
892
457
51%
York
1,709
636
37%
Total
149,581
56,035
37%
>50% of
completions had
applications
<15% of
completions had
applications
AR612
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 74 of 175
ASYLUM CASES RECEIVED AND COMPLETED
There are two types of asylum processes – defensive and affirmative. The defensive asylum process
applies to aliens who appear before EOIR and who request asylum before an IJ. The affirmative
asylum process applies to aliens who initially file an asylum application with USCIS and,
subsequently, have that application referred by USCIS to EOIR.
Figure 17. Defensive asylum
receipts have increased
significantly (423 percent)
from FY 2013 to FY 2017. In
the same period, affirmative
asylum receipts have increased
12 percent.
Figure 17. Asylum Receipts
Figure 18. Asylum receipts
increased 232 percent from FY
2013 to FY 2017; completions
increased by 51 percent over
the same period.
Figure 18. Asylum Receipts and ICCs
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Affirmative
19,931
16,267
17,339
12,753
22,252
Defensive
23,101
30,876
45,884
68,980
120,709
Total
43,032
47,143
63,223
81,733
142,961
-10,000
10,000
30,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
110,000
130,000
150,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Receipts
43,032
47,143
63,223
81,733
142,961
Completions
28,623
27,788
27,699
33,116
43,137
AR613
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 75 of 175
Table 13. Asylum ICCs by Court for FY 2017
Immigration Court Completions
Adelanto
738
Arlington
1,377
Atlanta
756
Aurora
225
Baltimore
831
Batavia
145
Bloomington
354
Boston
861
Buffalo
71
Charlotte
464
Chicago
955
Cleveland
409
Dallas
793
Denver
329
Detroit
365
El Paso
91
El Paso SPC
150
Elizabeth
531
Eloy
354
Fishkill
5
Florence
170
Harlingen
364
Hartford
316
Honolulu
289
Houston
2,493
Houston SPC
546
Imperial
143
Kansas City
352
Krome
1,011
Las Vegas
726
LaSalle
202
Los Angeles (N)
3,697
Los Angeles (D)
424
Louisville
31
Memphis
749
Miami
1,740
New Orleans
231
New York City
7,108
Newark
759
Oakdale
178
Omaha
434
Orlando
1,451
Otay Mesa
232
Otero
277
Pearsall
336
Philadelphia
500
Phoenix
603
Port Isabel
477
Portland
304
Saipan
0
Salt Lake City
286
San Antonio
808
San Diego
382
San Francisco
2,643
San Juan
10
Seattle
887
Stewart
541
Tacoma
776
Tucson
156
Ulster
13
Varick
235
York
453
Total
43,137
AR614
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 76 of 175
ASYLUM CASES COMPLETED BY DECISION
An asylum application also generally serves as an application for withholding of removal under section
241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). As such, EOIR reports on these two forms of
relief from removal contemporaneously. Grant rates are calculated as percentages of all completed
cases of the given type.
Figure 19. In the past five
years, asylum grants have
increased by about nine
percent.
Figure 19. Asylum ICCs by Decision
Figure 20. The defensive grant
rate is consistently lower than
that of affirmative asylum
applications. Similarly, the
defensive denial rate is
significantly higher than the
affirmative asylum denial rate.
Figure 20. Affirmative and Defensive Asylum ICCs by Decision
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Grants
9,753
8,638
8,170
8,730
10,654
Denials
8,665
9,152
8,752
11,695
17,677
Other
10,193
9,996
10,775
12,690
14,805
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Affirmative Grants
Defensive Grants
Affirmative Denials
Defensive Denials
Affirmative Other Closures
Defensive Other Closures
AR615
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 77 of 175
Figure 21.
Administrative closures
of asylum cases
decreased by about 48
percent from FY 2016
to FY 2017.
Figure 21. Administrative Closures of Asylum Cases
Figure 22. The grant
rate for either asylum
or withholding of
removal has decreased
about 30 percent in the
last five years.
Figure 22. Asylum and Withholding of Removal ICCs by Decision
Figure 23. The withholding of
removal grant rate has
decreased about 48 percent
from FY 2013 to FY 2017.
Figure 23. Withholding of Removal ICCs by Decision
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Total
7,568
7,335
12,215
18,630
9,626
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Asylum Grants
9,753
8,638
8,170
8,730
10,654
Withholding of Removal
Grants
1,624
1,436
1,138
1,049
1,265
Denials of Asylum and/or
Withholding of Removal
7,298
7,925
7,713
10,728
16,197
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Grants
1,624
1,436
1,138
1,049
1,265
Denials
9,237
9,529
8,950
12,013
17,684
Others
12,810
11,677
11,818
13,369
17,040
AR616
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 78 of 175
Table 14. Asylum Decision Rate by Immigration Court
Number
Rate
Number
Rate
Number
Rate
Number
Rate
Adelanto
98
13%
498
67%
142
19%
0
0%
738
Arlington
424
22%
411
21%
542
28%
557
29%
1,934
Atlanta
23
3%
481
59%
252
31%
55
7%
811
Aurora
29
13%
147
65%
49
22%
1
0%
226
Baltimore
355
36%
221
22%
255
26%
166
17%
997
Batavia
30
21%
83
57%
32
22%
1
1%
146
Bloomington
53
13%
184
46%
117
29%
50
12%
404
Boston
332
30%
194
18%
335
31%
235
21%
1,096
Buffalo
17
18%
30
31%
24
25%
25
26%
96
Charlotte
32
7%
289
59%
143
29%
22
5%
486
Chicago
336
29%
294
26%
325
28%
192
17%
1,147
Cleveland
39
7%
175
33%
195
37%
114
22%
523
Dallas
74
9%
511
62%
208
25%
34
4%
827
Denver
97
20%
95
20%
137
28%
157
32%
486
Detroit
46
11%
184
43%
135
32%
58
14%
423
El Paso
3
2%
43
25%
45
26%
80
47%
171
El Paso SPC
4
3%
88
59%
58
39%
0
0%
150
Elizabeth
199
37%
238
45%
94
18%
0
0%
531
Eloy
8
2%
186
53%
160
45%
0
0%
354
Fishkill
0
0%
4
80%
1
20%
0
0%
5
Florence
4
2%
77
45%
89
52%
0
0%
170
Harlingen
7
2%
52
14%
305
82%
6
2%
370
Hartford
96
24%
110
28%
110
28%
84
21%
400
Honolulu
214
73%
53
18%
22
8%
3
1%
292
Houston
205
8%
1,736
68%
552
22%
43
2%
2,536
Houston SPC
39
7%
350
64%
157
29%
1
0%
547
Imperial
24
16%
79
54%
40
27%
4
3%
147
Kansas City
59
13%
176
39%
117
26%
105
23%
457
Krome
55
5%
553
55%
403
40%
2
0%
1,013
Las Vegas
39
4%
462
48%
225
24%
228
24%
954
LaSalle
7
3%
147
72%
48
24%
1
0%
203
Los Angeles (N)
379
6%
1,082
18%
2,236
38%
2,244
38%
5,941
Los Angeles (D)
34
8%
303
71%
87
21%
0
0%
424
Louisville
0
0%
4
7%
27
47%
27
47%
58
Memphis
133
16%
465
54%
151
18%
109
13%
858
Miami
269
13%
923
45%
548
27%
311
15%
2,051
New Orleans
24
7%
112
30%
95
26%
137
37%
368
New York City
3,915
41%
1,000
10%
2,193
23%
2,541
26%
9,649
Newark
174
18%
98
10%
487
51%
191
20%
950
Oakdale
22
12%
117
66%
39
22%
0
0%
178
Omaha
34
6%
187
35%
213
40%
95
18%
529
Orlando
186
11%
846
52%
419
26%
190
12%
1,641
Otay Mesa
44
19%
143
61%
45
19%
2
1%
234
Otero
39
14%
193
70%
45
16%
0
0%
277
Pearsall
70
21%
211
63%
55
16%
0
0%
336
Philadelphia
178
29%
129
21%
193
32%
104
17%
604
Phoenix
71
7%
42
4%
490
50%
370
38%
973
Port Isabel
39
8%
371
78%
67
14%
0
0%
477
Portland
100
28%
113
31%
91
25%
57
16%
361
Saipan
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
Salt Lake City
39
12%
155
46%
91
27%
50
15%
335
San Antonio
126
14%
468
52%
214
24%
87
10%
895
San Diego
62
13%
183
40%
137
30%
78
17%
460
San Francisco
1,300
39%
437
13%
906
27%
670
20%
3,313
San Juan
5
45%
2
18%
3
27%
1
9%
11
Seattle
201
20%
496
49%
190
19%
121
12%
1,008
Stewart
13
2%
441
81%
87
16%
2
0%
543
Tacoma
130
17%
461
59%
185
24%
1
0%
777
Tucson
17
10%
120
71%
19
11%
12
7%
168
Ulster
0
0%
6
43%
7
50%
1
7%
14
Varick
33
14%
124
53%
78
33%
0
0%
235
York
69
15%
294
65%
90
20%
1
0%
454
Total
10,654
20%
17,677
34%
14,805
28%
9,626
18%
52,762
Total
Immigration Court
Grants
Denials
Other Closures
Administrative Closure
AR617
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 79 of 175
ASYLUM GRANTS BY COUNTRY OF NATIONALITY
Figure 24. In FY 2017, the top
four nationalities accounted for
57 percent of asylum grants.
China alone accounted for 26
percent of all asylum grants.
Table 15. For each of the five
years, six of the top 10
countries from which aliens
were granted asylum were
China, El Salvador,
Guatemala, India, Nepal, and
Ethiopia.
Figure 24. Asylum Grants by Country of Nationality
Table 15. Asylum Grants by Top 25 Countries of Nationality
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Asylum Grants
China
2,794
El Salvador
1,355
Honduras
955
Guatemala
951
Other
4,599
Rank
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
1
China
China
China
China
China
2
Nepal
India
Guatemala
El Salvador
El Salvador
3
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Honduras
Guatemala
Honduras
4
India
Nepal
India
Honduras
Guatemala
5
Egypt
Egypt
El Salvador
Mexico
Mexico
6
Soviet Union
El Salvador
Nepal
India
India
7
Eritrea
Guatemala
Ethiopia
Nepal
Nepal
8
Russia
Eritrea
Mexico
Ethiopia
Eritrea
9
El Salvador
Soviet Union
Somalia
Somalia
Cameroon
10
Guatemala
Honduras
Soviet Union
Eritrea
Ethiopia
11
Mexico
Somalia
Egypt
Egypt
Syria
12
Cameroon
Russia
Eritrea
Soviet Union
Egypt
13
Pakistan
Cameroon
Russia
Cameroon
Bangladesh
14
Sri Lanka
Mexico
Syria
Bangladesh
Soviet Union
15
Guinea
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Albania
Albania
16
Honduras
Venezuela
Cameroon
Russia
Pakistan
17
Somalia
Iraq
Nigeria
Syria
Haiti
18
Mali
Gambia
Albania
Burkina Faso
Somalia
19
Moldavia (Moldova)
Sri Lanka
Haiti
Pakistan
Guinea
20
Venezuela
Moldavia (Moldova)
Colombia
Nigeria
Ecuador
21
Indonesia
Colombia
Gambia
Ghana
Burkina Faso
22
Colombia
Syria
Pakistan
Iran
Ghana
23
Gambia
Albania
Iraq
Kirghizia (Kyrgyzstan)
Ukraine
24
Bangladesh
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso
Guinea
Nigeria
25
Burkina Faso
Nigeria
Kirghizia (Kyrgyzstan)
Ukraine
Venezuela
AR618
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 80 of 175
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
In 1999, the Department of Justice implemented regulations regarding the Convention Against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention Against Torture or
CAT). There are two forms of protection under the Convention Against Torture, withholding of
removal and deferral of removal.
Table 16. Convention Against Torture Cases by Decision
Withholding
Deferral
Total
760
175
935
17,061
25,249
6,455
2,044
14
51,758
Total
Not
Adjudicated
Granted
Denied
Other
Withdrawn
Abandoned
AR619
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 81 of 175
Table 17. Convention Against Torture Completions by Court
Immigration Court Completions
Adelanto
1,588
Arlington
2,269
Atlanta
883
Aurora
352
Baltimore
821
Batavia
203
Bloomington
405
Boston
733
Buffalo
163
Charlotte
579
Chicago
969
Cleveland
503
Dallas
825
Denver
460
Detroit
614
El Paso
200
El Paso SPC
198
Elizabeth
717
Eloy
806
Fishkill
33
Florence
517
Harlingen
311
Hartford
378
Honolulu
190
Houston
2,094
Houston SPC
856
Imperial
758
Kansas City
467
Krome
1,145
Las Vegas
973
LaSalle
247
Los Angeles (N)
3,699
Los Angeles (D)
665
Louisville
84
Memphis
786
Miami
2,219
New Orleans
354
New York City
5,915
Newark
791
Oakdale
215
Omaha
245
Orlando
1,863
Otay Mesa
846
Otero
321
Pearsall
539
Philadelphia
582
Phoenix
393
Port Isabel
603
Portland
426
Saipan
5
Salt Lake City
352
San Antonio
1,213
San Diego
645
San Francisco
3,541
San Juan
9
Seattle
1,002
Stewart
639
Tacoma
1,100
Tucson
116
Ulster
77
Varick
589
York
667
Total
51,758
AR620
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 82 of 175
I-862 APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF OTHER THAN ASYLUM
In addition to asylum, there is a variety of types of relief from removal available to aliens in
immigration proceedings. These include, but are not limited to, different forms of cancellation of
removal, adjustment of status, and different types of waivers.
Table 18. I-862 Cases Grants of Relief
Adjustment of
Status to LPR
Suspension of
Deportation
Cancellation
of Removal
Suspension of
Deportation
Cancellation
of Removal
FY 13
667
3,874
5,033
71
325
0
4,031
FY 14
551
3,220
3,281
69
275
2
3,847
FY 15
439
2,592
2,198
53
279
2
3,827
FY 16
385
2,239
1,854
31
247
1
3,735
FY 17
401
2,202
1,860
54
304
0
3,716
Fiscal Year
Relief Granted to Lawful
Permanent Residents (LPR)
Relief Granted to Non-LPR
Relief Granted
Under Section
212(c)
Cancellation of
Removal
Not Subject to Annual Cap of 4,000 Grants
Subject to Annual Cap of 4,000
Grants
AR621
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 83 of 175
I-862 IN ABSENTIA ORDERS
When an alien fails to appear for a hearing, the IJ may conduct a hearing in the alien’s absence (in
absentia). The in absentia rate refers to the proportion of all IJ decisions at the ICC where the removal
order is issued in absentia.
Figure 25. From FY 2016 to FY 2017, the overall I-862 in absentia rate increased by about eight
percent. In the same period, the never detained in absentia rate increased 18 percent. The released rate
increased 13 percent.
Figure 25. I-862 In Absentia Rates
14%
20%
31%
33%
6%
19%
29%
37%
53%
6%
28%
41%
38%
48%
7%
26%
37%
36%
41%
9%
28%
44%
41%
49%
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All Cases
Never Detained
Released
UAC
Asylum
All Cases
Never Detained
Released
UAC
Asylum
All Cases
Never Detained
Released
UAC
Asylum
All Cases
Never Detained
Released
UAC
Asylum
All Cases
Never Detained
Released
UAC
Asylum
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Decisions Not In Absentia
Decisions In Absentia
AR622
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 84 of 175
Table 19. I-862 In Absentia Orders and ICCs by Respondent Type
FY
Decision Subset
All
Cases
Never
Detained
Cases
Released
Cases
UAC
Cases
Asylum
Cases
In Absentia Orders
18,747
10,394
8,278
836
1,742
Initial Case Completion
136,761
51,152
26,798
2,565
28,459
In Absentia Orders
23,440
13,676
9,662
1,882
1,748
Initial Case Completion
124,238
46,874
26,223
3,576
27,584
In Absentia Orders
35,166
24,646
10,464
6,481
1,847
Initial Case Completion
127,350
59,550
27,442
13,435
27,644
In Absentia Orders
32,755
23,437
9,254
6,191
3,017
Initial Case Completion
128,145
62,852
25,380
15,095
33,082
In Absentia Orders
41,384
30,010
11,292
6,759
4,776
Initial Case Completion
149,436
67,966
27,376
13,872
43,013
FY 17
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
AR623
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 85 of 175
IMMIGRATION JUDGE HIRING
To better manage its caseload, EOIR focused on increased hiring of immigration judges in FY 2017.
Figure 26. The number
of IJs on board
increased 17 percent in
FY 2017.
Figure 26. Immigration Judge Hiring
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
FY
2010
FY
2011
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
FY
2017
Total IJs Hired
17
39
4
8
0
20
56
64
Total IJs on Board
245
273
267
262
249
254
289
338
AR624
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 86 of 175
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
TOTAL CASES RECEIVED AND COMPLETED
The majority of cases BIA reviews arise from decisions IJs make in removal, deportation, or exclusion
cases. A full list of case types heard by BIA originating from OCIJ is below. For purposes of this
Statistics Yearbook, these types of cases are collectively referred to as appeals from IJ decisions.
Case appeals from the decisions of IJs in removal, deportation, and exclusion cases at the court
level;
Appeals filed from the decisions of IJs on motions to reopen;
Motions to reopen and/or reconsider filed in cases already decided by the BIA;
Appeals pertaining to bond, parole, or detention;
Interlocutory appeals; and
Cases (or appeals) remanded from the Federal Court.
The BIA also has jurisdiction to review appeals arising from certain decisions that DHS officials
render. These types of appeals are listed below. For purposes of this Statistics Yearbook, appeals from
these DHS decisions are referred to as DHS decision appeals.
Family-based visa petitions adjudicated by DHS district directors or regional service center
directors;
Waivers of inadmissibility for non-immigrants under INA § 212(d)(3)(A)(ii); and
Fines and penalties imposed upon carriers for violations of immigration laws.
Figure 27. In FY 2017
completions decreased slightly
while receipts increased
slightly.
Figure 27. Total BIA Cases Received and Completed
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Receipts
34,808
29,750
29,346
30,221
33,503
Completions
36,688
30,822
34,243
33,241
31,820
AR625
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 87 of 175
CASES RECEIVED AND COMPLETED BY TYPE
BIA has jurisdiction over appeals from IJ decisions and certain DHS decisions. The majority of
appeals from IJ decisions are from case appeals, and the majority of appeals from DHS decisions are
from visa petitions.
Figure 31. Appeals from IJ decisions make up most of the BIA’s work. Completions of appeals from
IJ decisions increased about three percent in FY 2017. Completions from DHS decisions decreased by
about 32 percent.
Figure 28. BIA Receipts and Completions by Case Type
Table 20. BIA Receipts and Completions by Type
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Receipts: Appeals from DHS Decisions
5,598
4,385
6,480
5,639
3,958
Receipts: Appeals from IJ Decisions
29,210
25,365
22,866
24,582
29,545
Receipts: Total Appeals
34,808
29,750
29,346
30,221
33,503
Completions: Appeals from DHS
Decisions
5,411
3,293
6,641
6,767
4,586
Completions: Appeals from IJ Decisions
31,277
27,529
27,602
26,474
27,234
Completions: Total Appeals
36,688
30,822
34,243
33,241
31,820
Receipts
Comp.
Receipts
Comp.
Receipts
Comp.
Receipts
Comp.
Receipts
Comp.
Total Appeals from IJ Decisions
29,210
31,277
25,365
27,529
22,866
27,602
24,582
26,474
29,545
27,234
Case Appeal
16,495
17,933
13,557
15,775
11,475
15,474
12,737
14,563
17,106
15,966
Appeal of IJ Motion to Reopen
1,639
1,839
1,516
1,691
1,454
1,659
1,453
1,631
1,785
1,960
Motion to Reopen/Reconsider-BIA
7,692
8,603
6,691
6,394
5,908
6,427
5,639
5,586
5,898
5,000
Bond Appeal
1,816
1,700
2,091
1,990
2,253
2,220
3,002
2,805
3,621
3,124
Bond MTR
28
24
32
35
52
47
57
45
33
43
Interlocutory Appeal
209
194
163
169
240
216
352
287
433
404
Federal Court Remand
1,331
984
1,314
1,474
1,484
1,559
1,341
1,556
669
737
Continued Detention Review
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
Zero Bond Appeal
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Appeals from DHS
Decisions
5,598
5,411
4,385
3,293
6,480
6,641
5,639
6,767
3,958
4,586
Decisions on Visa Petitions
5,539
5,348
4,333
3,266
6,435
6,573
5,612
6,734
3,911
4,550
212(d)(3)(A) Waiver Decisions
55
60
49
25
45
65
26
33
45
33
Decisions on Fines and Penalties
4
3
3
2
0
3
1
0
2
3
Grand Total
34,808
36,688
29,750
30,822
29,346
34,243
30,221
33,241
33,503
31,820
FY 2017
Appeal Type
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
AR626
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 88 of 175
APPEALS FROM IJ DECISIONS COMPLETED BY COUNTRY OF NATIONALITY
BIA hears appeals from IJ decisions involving hundreds of nationalities. Appeals from IJ decisions
arise primarily in cases of aliens from Mexico and Central America.
Figure 29. Over half of
completed appeals from IJ
decisions involve an alien
from one of three countries.
Table 21. For the past five
years, nine countries ranked
among the top ten: Mexico, El
Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, China, India, Haiti,
Jamaica, and Dominican
Republic.
Figure 29. Completed Appeals from IJ Decisions by Nationality
Table 21. BIA Appeals from ICCs by Top 25 Countries of Nationality
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Completions
Mexico
7,737
El Salvador
3,958
Guatemala
2,857
Honduras
2,584
Other
10,098
Rank
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
1
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
2
China
China
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
3
El Salvador
El Salvador
China
China
Guatemala
4
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Honduras
5
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
China
6
India
India
India
India
India
7
Colombia
Jamaica
Haiti
Haiti
Haiti
8
Jamaica
Colombia
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
9
Indonesia
Haiti
Colombia
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
10
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
Colombia
Ecuador
11
Haiti
Brazil
Brazil
Bangladesh
Colombia
12
Brazil
Indonesia
Nigeria
Ecuador
Bangladesh
13
Pakistan
Nigeria
Ecuador
Brazil
Brazil
14
Nigeria
Peru
Philippines
Nigeria
Nigeria
15
Venezuela
Pakistan
Peru
Philippines
Ghana
16
Philippines
Ecuador
Indonesia
Peru
Philippines
17
Ecuador
Philippines
Nicaragua
Indonesia
Pakistan
18
Peru
Kenya
Bangladesh
Armenia
Somalia
19
Kenya
Venezuela
Pakistan
Nicaragua
Peru
20
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nepal
Ghana
Nicaragua
21
Armenia
Ghana
Kenya
Nepal
Venezuela
22
Nepal
Russia
Armenia
Pakistan
Kenya
23
Albania
Nepal
Venezuela
Venezuela
Cameroon
24
Russia
Albania
Russia
Kenya
Cuba
25
Ghana
Armenia
Ghana
Albania
Nepal
AR627
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 89 of 175
APPEALS FROM IJ DECISIONS (I-862) COMPLETED BY REPRESENTATION STATUS
Figure 30. Representation rate
for appeals has remained
roughly constant across the
past five years, reaching a high
of 80 percent of completed
appeals from IJ decisions
represented in FY 2017.
Figure 30. Completed Appeals from IJ Decisions (I-862 Cases)
by Representation Status
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Represented
24,742
20,804
21,130
20,935
21,810
Unrepresented
6,535
6,725
6,472
5,539
5,424
Total
31,277
27,529
27,602
26,474
27,234
% Represented
79%
76%
77%
79%
80%
AR628
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 90 of 175
CASE APPEALS FROM IJ DECISION (I-862 ICCS) COMPLETED FOR DETAINED CASES
BIA handles detained cases (including aliens in IHP) as priority cases. For the purposes of Figure 31,
figures for detained cases include IHP cases and cases of unaccompanied alien children in the custody
of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Figure 31. The percent of
completed case appeals from
ICCs in I-862 detained cases
has stayed approximately
constant over the past five
years, within a five-percentage
point spread.
Figure 31. Complete Case Appeals from I-862 ICCs by
Detention Status
Table 22. The percent of total detained IHP completions has been consistently between six and seven
percent for the past five years.
Table 22. BIA Detained Completions
22%
23%
24%
25%
26%
27%
28%
29%
30%
31%
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
Detained Case Appeal
Decisions
4,589
4,796
4,398
3,577
4,243
Total Case Appeal
Decisions
17,933
15,775
15,474
14,563
15,966
Percent Detained
26%
30%
28%
25%
27%
Fiscal Year
Total Detained
Completions
IHP
Completions
Percent IHP
Completions
FY 13
4,589
302
7%
FY 14
4,796
273
6%
FY 15
4,398
280
6%
FY 16
3,577
265
7%
FY 17
4,243
293
7%
AR629
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 91 of 175
IJ DECISIONS (I-862 ICCS) APPEALED
Figure 32. The percentage of
ICCs being appealed has
fluctuated between nine and 12
percent across the past five
fiscal years.
Figure 32. I-862 ICCs Appealed to BIA
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
-10,000
10,000
30,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
110,000
130,000
150,000
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
FY 16
FY 17
IJ Decisions
137,329124,649127,452128,201149,581
Case Appeals Received
16,495 13,557 11,475 12,737 17,106
Percent Appealed
12%
11%
9%
10%
11%
AR630
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 92 of 175
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
TOTAL CASES RECEIVED AND COMPLETED
OCAHO is headed by the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, who is responsible for the general
supervision of administrative law judges (ALJs), management of OCAHO and review of ALJ
decisions relating to illegal hiring, employment eligibility verification violations and document fraud.
OCAHO’s ALJs hear cases and adjudicate issues arising under provisions of the INA relating to:
Knowingly hiring, recruiting or referring for a fee unauthorized aliens, or the continued
employment of unauthorized aliens, failure to comply with employment eligibility verification
requirements, and/or requiring indemnity bonds from employees in violation of section 274A
of the INA (employer sanctions provisions);
Unfair immigration-related employment practices in violation of section 274B of the INA (anti-
discrimination provisions); and
Immigration-related document fraud in violation of section 274C of the INA (document fraud
provisions).
Employer sanctions and document fraud complaints are brought by the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security. Anti-discrimination complaints may be brought by the U.S. Department of Justice’s
Immigrant and Employee Rights Section or private litigants. All final agency decisions may be
appealed to the appropriate federal circuit court of appeals.
AR631
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 93 of 175
Figure 33.
Completions continued
to outpace receipts in
FY 2017. Note that
completions may have
been for cases received
in a prior fiscal year.
Figure 33. OCAHO Receipts and Completions
Figure 34. The bulk of
OCAHO’s workload is
274A and 274B
complaints.
Figure 34. OCAHO Receipts and Completions by Type
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
FY 16
FY 17
Receipts
84
74
Completions
119
75
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
274A and
274B
Complaints
Subpoenas
Requests for
Review
Attorney's
Fees
FY 15 Receipts
58
22
5
1
FY 15 Completions
77
22
5
0
FY 16 Receipts
37
21
2
0
FY 16 Completions
56
21
2
1
FY 17 Receipts
58
45
0
0
FY 17 Completions
62
45
0
0
AR632
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 94 of 175
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA)
FOIA RECEIPTS
Figure 35. Since FY
2013, the number of
FOIA requests received
by EOIR has increased
by about 73 percent.
Figure 35. FOIA Receipts
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Receipts
25,336
26,614
31,513
35,500
43,859
AR633
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 95 of 175
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Planning, Analysis, and Statistics Division
Asylum Median Processing Time (I-862 & I-863 Initial Case
Completions).
Date Range: October 1, 2014 through June 30, 2019
Date of Data Run: July 12, 2019
Asylum Median Processing Time (I-862 & I-863 Initial Case
Completions).
Fiscal Year
Asylum Median Processing Time
FY 2015
713 days
FY 2016
589 days
FY 2017
623 days
FY 2018
765 days
FY 2019 (through June 30, 2019)
812 days
AR634
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 96 of 175
WASHINGTON—President Trump praised Mexico’s efforts to intercept Central American
asylum seekers and said that Guatemala was getting ready to sign an agreement that would
make it a final refuge for people fleeing poverty and violence in the region.
In a pair of tweets Monday night, Mr. Trump said that Guatemala was preparing to sign a “Safe-
Third Agreement,” in an apparent reference to a legal designation that would require Central
American migrants that cross into Guatemala to claim asylum there, blocking those migrants
from lodging claims elsewhere.
Officials from Guatemala’s Foreign Ministry didn’t immediately respond to requests for
comment, and the White House declined to immediately provide further details.
Mr. Trump also said Monday night that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would
increase its efforts to remove people in the U.S. without authorization.
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit
https://www.djreprints.com.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-says-guatemala-is-set-to-help-stem-migrant-flow-11560833062
LATIN AMERICA
Trump Says Guatemala Is Set to Help Stem
Migrant Flow
President also says U.S. will increase deportation efforts
People look through a section of the U.S.-Mexico border barrier on the beach in Tijuana, Mexico, on June 9. On Monday, President
Trump said Guatemala was ready to sign a ‘Safe-Third Agreement’ to accept asylum seekers and prevent them from coming to
the U.S. PHOTO: CESAR RODRIGUEZ`BLOOMBERG NEWS
June 18, 2019 1244 am ET
By Louise Radnofsky
AR635
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 97 of 175
“Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly
found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in,” wrote Mr.
Trump.
An administration official said there were more than one million immigrants who were subject
to final deportation orders but the orders hadn’t yet been enforced. The administration official
said late Monday that enforcing the orders would be a top priority for ICE.
Many of the families who have been traveling through Mexico to the U.S. border have been
coming from Guatemala as well as Honduras and El Salvador. Many say they are fleeing a
combination of endemic poverty, violence and corruption in the region.
The issue of “safe third country” status remains a major point of contention between the
U.S. and Mexico, even as the two countries have reached a deal to attempt to stem a flow of
Central American adults and children that U.S. authorities say have brought the southwest
border to a breaking point by arriving each day in the thousands.
Mexico had long resisted U.S. requests that it accept the safe third country status, insisting that
it lacked the resources to uphold such a commitment—but as part of its agreement with the
U.S., Mexico pledged last week that it would take steps to declare itself a safe third country if its
other efforts failed to reduce migrant numbers.
Mexico has said that its ability to uphold its asylum commitments would depend on whether
Guatemala and other Central American countries would also agree to grant asylum to migrants.
Mr. Trump’s tweets on Monday night suggested that the regional framework that Mexico has
been pressing for could be advancing.
“Mexico, using their strong immigration laws, is doing a very good job of stopping people long
before they get to our Southern Border,” wrote Mr. Trump. “Guatemala is getting ready to sign a
Safe-Third Agreement.”
But migrant rights groups have raised significant concerns over Guatemala’s ability to provide
shelter and assistance to asylum seekers crossing into the country from Honduras and El
AR636
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 98 of 175
Salvador. Charities and civic groups currently provide most of the funding and resources for
such assistance right now.
U.S. officials say the American immigration system is ill-equipped to receive Central American
families seeking asylum, from the moment they turn themselves in to the court adjudication of
their claims. which can take years amid heavy backlogs.
Write to Louise Radnofsky at louise.radnofsky@wsj.com
Appeared in the June 18, 2019, print edition as 'Trump Says Guatemala Is Set to Stem Flow.'
Copyright © 2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit
https://www.djreprints.com.
AR637
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 99 of 175
1
Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
For the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Compilation Report
Universal Periodic Review: 3rd Cycle, 31st Session
MEXICO
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Mexico acceded to both the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967
Protocol (hereinafter jointly referred to as the “1951 Convention”) in 2000, making reservations to
articles 17, 26, 31.2 and 32 of the 1951 Convention as well as an interpretative declaration to
article 1 and the 1967 Protocol; in 2014, Mexico withdrew its reservation to article 32. Mexico also
acceded to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless persons (the “1954
Convention”) in 2000 with reservations to articles 17, 31 and 32. Reservation to article 31 was
subsequently withdrawn in 2014. The State is not a party to the 1961 Convention in the Reduction
of Statelessness (the “1961 Convention”).
The 2011 Refugees, Complementary Protection and Political Asylum Act and its Regulatory
Framework together with the Migration Act constitute the domestic legal framework governing
asylum. Further guarantees related to the principle of non-refoulement, upholding the best interests
of the child, and due process during migration procedures are enshrined in the General Law on the
Rights of Children and Adolescents published in 2014, along with its Regulatory Framework. The
principal government body responsible for refugee issues, including refugee status determination,
is the Mexican Commission for Refugees (COMAR), created by Presidential decree in 1980 under
the Ministry of Interior. In 2011, Mexico adopted its Migration Law, creating a formal statelessness
determination procedure which began functioning in 2012. The statelessness determination
procedure (SDP) is mainly regulated by Article 150 of the Regulations to the Migration Law.
Applications for statelessness status are received by the National Migration Institute, which
requests a legal opinion from COMAR.
Violence and persecution inflicted mostly by criminal actors in the North of Central America (NCA) 1
triggers forced displacement with increasing numbers of unaccompanied children and adolescents,
families, as well as persons discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity. While more than 400,000 people were estimated to have crossed Mexico’s southern
border in 2016, only approximately 2 percent of those applied for asylum, representing
nevertheless an increase of 156 per cent from claims submitted in 2015. Out of the total asylum
applications in 2016, 5,954 persons completed their process (3,076 persons were recognized as
refugees and 641 were given complementary protection). From January to December 2017,
14,596 people applied for asylum (1,907 persons were recognized as refugees, 918 given
complementary protection, and 7,719 cases remain pending).2 Statistics indicate that for the period
January-December 2017, 29% asylum-seekers were from Honduras, 25% from El Salvador, 4.6%
from Guatemala, and 27% from Venezuela.
Regarding unaccompanied children from North of Central America (El Salvador, Honduras and
Guatemala), approximately 35% of them expressed fear of returning to their country of origin due
1 Mexico is also a country of transit for refugees and migrants from Asia and Africa seeking to reach the United States and Canada.
2 Government of Mexico, COMAR Statistics, available at:
https://www.gob.mx/comar/articulos/estadisticas-2013-2017?idiom=es Last visited: 12 March 2018.
AR638
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 100 of 175
2
to social violence or domestic violence.3 UNHCR conducted interviews with unaccompanied and
separated children (UASC) and determined that violence led more than 48.6% of them to leave
their countries of origin, thus meaning they had potential international protection needs.4 However,
in 2016 only 242 UASC applied for asylum (103 were recognized, 28 granted complementary
protection, 44 rejected, and 67 formally withdrew or abandoned their claims).
It should be noted that Mexico is playing a key role internationally and in the region with regards to
advancing the protection of asylum-seekers and refugees. The Mexican Government is one of the
leading States of an initiative to develop a regional application of the Comprehensive Refugee
Response Framework, which will contribute to the adoption of the Global Compact on Refugees in
2018. This regional initiative, known as the Comprehensive Regional Protection and Solutions
Framework (MIRPS, in Spanish) has been undertaken with the support of UNHCR.
II. ACHIEVEMENTS AND POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS
Positive developments linked to the 2nd cycle UPR recommendations
Linked to 2nd cycle UPR recommendation no. 148.173: “Continue to work towards the
protection and defence of the rights of migrants (Argentina and Bolivia).”
UNHCR commends Mexico’s active participation and leadership in the San José Action Statement,
the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants, the Leadership Summit on Refugees, and
the CRPSF process in October 2017. Mexico undertook a number of laudable commitments in the
framework of MIRPS. In particular, Mexico committed to: (a) expand the scope of programmes on
alternative measures to detention to asylum-seekers, specifically unaccompanied children and
adolescents, persons in situations of vulnerability, families, older persons, and persons with
medical needs; (b) expand access to basic services and rights for asylum-seekers and refugees,
such as through the incorporation in the public health-care system (Seguro Popular) and in other
social programs through the Social Development Ministry (SEDESOL) and, (c) carry out
information and awareness-raising campaigns on the asylum procedure for government officials as
well as persons with international protection needs.
UNHCR commends Mexico for its undertaking to strengthen the Mexican Refugee Agency
(COMAR) and the establishment in 2015 of the Special Unit for the Investigation of Crimes Against
Migrant Persons within the Attorney General’s Office (PGR).
Linked to 2nd cycle UPR recommendation no. 148.154: “Intensify efforts to guarantee universal
access to health services, information and education on health and sexual and reproductive rights,
particularly for adolescents (Uruguay).”
UNHCR is pleased to note that Mexico has 76 Ambulatory Centres for the Prevention and
Attention of AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Infections (CAPASITS, in Spanish) throughout all 32
states in the country – 15 of those along the migration route - which offer medical attention and
psycho-social attention, as well as free antiretroviral treatment. Migrants, asylum-seekers, and
refugees can receive medical treatment and HIV and ITS medication at CAPASITS at no cost and
regardless of immigration status after persons have registered with the Seguro Popular.5
III.
KEY PROTECTION ISSUES, CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Challenges linked to outstanding 2nd cycle UPR recommendations
3 CONAPO, “Características, tendencias y causas de la migración de niñas, niños y adolescentes desde, hacia y en tránsito por
México, 2011-2016” en La situación demográfica de México 2016, https://www.gob.mx/conapo/documentos/la-situacion-demografica-
de-mexico-2016.
4 ACNUR, “Arrancados de Raíz: Causas que originan el desplazamiento transfronterizo de niños, niñas y adolescentes no
acompañados y/o separados de Centroamérica y su necesidad de protección internacional”, 2014,
http://www.acnur.org/fileadmin/scripts/doc.php?file=fileadmin/Documentos/Publicaciones/2014/9828.
5 UNHCHR has not received any information indicating that asylum-seekers or refugees have been refused medical attention at
CAPASITS, regardless of immigration status or registration with Seguro Popular.
AR639
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 101 of 175
3
Issue 1: Ratification of international instruments
Linked to 2nd cycle UPR recommendation no. 148.7: “Ratify the 1961 Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness (Paraguay).”
Mexico is a party to the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons having made
reservations to articles 17 and 32, and has not yet acceded to the 1961 Convention on the
Reduction on Statelessness. UNHCR appreciates that Mexico has been a key promoter in
international fora of the right of all persons to be registered at birth and to be recognized
everywhere as a person before the law. In this regard, efforts should be made to reform national
legislation in ways that permit accession to the 1961 Convention and also to withdraw the
reservations made to the 1954 Convention.
Recommendations:
UNHCR recommends that the Government of Mexico:
(a) Consider acceding to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness;
(b) Consider withdrawing the reservations made to the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status
of Stateless Persons;
(c) Strengthen the implementation of the statelessness determination procedure; and
(d) Ensure Mexican legislation is in line with the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness.
Issue 2: Protection of human rights of asylum-seekers and refugees
Linked to 2nd cycle UPR recommendation no. 148.175: “Effectively protect and guarantee the
safety and human rights of migrants, especially women and children, including those that are in
transit in the national territory, ensuring their access to justice, education, health and civil registry,
incorporating the principle of the best interest of the child and the family unit (Holy See).”
In addition to ensuring respect for migrants’ human rights, the 2011 Migration Act also has the
merit of establishing mechanisms for preventing crimes against migrants and procedures leading
to regularization of immigration status, as well as for the issuance of “temporary visitor for
humanitarian reasons” cards to migrants who are victims of serious crimes, unaccompanied
children and asylum-seekers, which allow freedom of movement and access to formal employment
in principle, but in practice individuals also require a Unique Population Code to be hired (CURP, in
Spanish) and existing administrative arrangements do not allow for this code to be issued to
asylum-seekers (see Issue 5, below).
Additionally, concerns persist regarding the rise in crimes and the increased risk towards migrants
throughout the country, the high levels of impunity for crimes committed against migrants, and the
difficulties that migrants who are victims of crime and asylum-seekers continue to face in accessing
justice and obtaining regularization for humanitarian reasons under article 52 of the 2011 Migration
Act. These concerns were also raised recently by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of
Migrant Workers (27 September 2017, CMW/C/MEX/CO/3)
Recommendations:
UNHCR recommends that the Government of Mexico:
(a) Ensure access to justice for migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees by strengthening the
Special Unit for the Investigation of Crimes against Migrant Persons within the Attorney
General’s Office (PGR), and the State-level Special Prosecutor Offices for the Attention of
Crimes against Migrants; and
(b) Standardize administrative practices in the National Institute of Migration (INM) to ensure
that all migrants who fall within the scope of article 52 of the 2011 Migration Act and all
asylum-seekers are duly granted the “temporary visitor for humanitarian reasons” card.
Issue 3: Sexual and gender-based violence against migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees
AR640
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 102 of 175
4
Linked to 2nd cycle UPR recommendation no. 148.79: “Continue to take the necessary
measures to prevent violence against women, particularly migrant women and penalise those who
commit these acts of violence (Nicaragua).”
The 2007 General Act for Access for Women to a Life Without Violence and its 2008 Regulations
together with the 2014-2018 Comprehensive Programme to Prevent, Punish and Eradicate
Violence against Women establish the obligations of the Mexican state to punish and eradicate
violence against women under its national framework. The National Human Rights Commission
(CNDH) recognized violence against women as an extremely serious problem in Mexico noting
that almost 7 out of 10 women in Mexico have suffered violence.6 In this context, migrant, asylum-
seeking, and refugee women are particularly vulnerable due to their national origin and their legal
status in Mexico, due to discrimination, lack of generalized knowledge by public officials –
particularly at the local level - regarding the rights of migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees, and
due to a lack of specialized services. The application of administrative detention measures for
persons submitting asylum claims at the border exacerbates the risk of violence for women, girls,
and LGBTI persons because to avoid detention almost all enter the country irregularly. Asylum-
seekers generally then travel to towns located 20 to 160 km from the border to make asylum
claims, but to do so they often travel along remote routes and are exposed to significant risks of
assault and sexual and gender-based violence. Additional obstacles hamper migrant, asylum-
seeking and refugee women’s access to services and justice, such as lack of access to services
due to irregular migration status, lack of awareness by justice and public health authorities
regarding the rights that asylum-seeking and refugee women and girls are entitled to in Mexico,
lack of access to legal representation to file criminal complaints, among others.
Recommendations:
UNHCR recommends that the Government of Mexico:
(a) Implement programmes aimed at the prevention, punishment and eradication of sexual and
gender-based violence faced by women migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees, which
include adequate training for relevant government and health officials; and
(b) End the administrative detention of asylum-seekers who submit international protection
claims at the border.
Additional protection challenges
Issue 4: Detention of migrants and asylum seekers, particularly children and other
vulnerable persons
The 2011 Migration Act provides for the automatic administrative detention of all persons in an
irregular immigration situation in the country. This law prescribes a time limit of maximum 15
working days for immigration detention which can be extended up to 60 working days in
exceptional cases. However, the 2011 Migration Act does not specify a time limit for detention for
those who initiate an administrative procedure or judicial remedy, with the consequence that in
practice there is no maximum period for immigration detention for asylum-seekers who initiate a
legal remedy. Furthermore, although national law prohibits the detention of children and the
Government of Mexico committed to fully ending the administrative detention of children under 11
years of age during the 2016 Leaders’ Summit on Refugees, many children detected by migration
authorities are referred to Immigration Stations (detention centers) or to closed-door shelters.
During 2016, more than 186,216 detentions for immigration-related purposes took place, including
40,144 children, of whom 17,557 were unaccompanied. Concerns have been expressed by the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on the deterrent effect that detention has on persons
6 Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos, Diagnóstico de la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos como integrante de
los grupos de trabajo que dan seguimiento a los procedimientos de Alerta de Violencia de Género contra las Mujeres (AVGM), 2017, p.
50
AR641
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 103 of 175
5
with international protection needs, who may choose not to apply for asylum in detention centres or
to make a claim but later abandon or withdraw it.7
In 2016, the Government established a program to release asylum-seekers from detention to
continue their asylum procedures in civil society shelters. From July 2016 until December 2017,
over 1,900 asylum-seekers were released from detention to shelters. However, this release
programme has not been regulated through the issuance of an administrative directive or a legal
reform, which generates uncertainty and protection gaps.
Recommendations:
UNHCR recommends that the Government of Mexico:
(a) Ensure that the legal framework on migration and asylum is fully harmonized with the
General Law on the Rights of Children and Adolescents and with relevant international
standards on the rights of the child, to ensure that no child is subject to administrative
detention and that all children shelters have an adequate comprehensive attention model;
(b) Ensure that the migration authority implements measures to identify international protection
needs during the initial appearance at the Immigration Stations, thus facilitating access to
the asylum system and the alternatives to administrative detention programs;
(c) Consider amending the 2011 Migration Act to remove those provisions that authorize the
automatic administrative detention of all persons in an irregular migratory situation,
particularly asylum-seekers; and
(d) Consider amending relevant legislation or issuing an executive or administrative order to
ensure that the alternative to administrative detention program for asylum-seekers is fully
enforceable, transparent, and applicable throughout the country.
Issue 5: Access to economic, social and cultural rights for asylum-seekers and refugees
The 2011 Refugees, Complementary Protection and Political Asylum Act establishes that refugees
should have all possible means to access the rights and guarantees established in the Mexican
Constitution, including the right to work, housing, health, education, and other relevant economic,
social and cultural rights.
Nevertheless, asylum-seekers and refugees continue to face several obstacles in fully enjoying
economic, social, and cultural rights due to obstacles in obtaining the Unique Population Code
(CURP). The lack of knowledge of asylum-seekers and refugees’ rights and related documentation
by public service providers constitutes an additional barrier. In some instances, discriminatory
patterns further complicate effective access to rights.
Recommendations:
UNHCR recommends that the Government of Mexico:
(a) Continue strengthening efforts to ensure full enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural
rights for asylum-seekers and refugees, including by removing administrative barriers or by
facilitating access to social programs;
(b) Ensure that asylum-seekers have access to the Seguro Popular national health insurance
scheme for a period of at least one year;
(c) Ensure that banking and financial institutions fully comply with the CNBV directive so that
all identity documents issued by the National Institute of Migration are duly accepted to
open bank accounts and access financial services; and
(d) Consider facilitating access to the CURP identification number for asylum-seekers.
UNHCR
March 2018
7 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights of Migrants and other Persons in the Context of Human Mobility in
Mexico (2013), available at:
http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/migrants/docs/pdf/Report-Migrants-Mexico-2013.pdf.
AR642
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 104 of 175
6
ANNEX
Excerpts of relevant Recommendations from the 2nd cycle Universal Periodic Review,
Concluding Observations from UN Treaty Bodies and Recommendations of Special
Procedures mandate holders
MEXICO
We would like to bring your attention to the following excerpts from the 2nd cycle UPR
recommendations, UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies’ Concluding Observations, and recommendations
from UN Special Procedures mandate holders’ reports relating to issues of interest and persons of
concern to UNHCR with regards to Mexico.
I. Universal Periodic Review (Second Cycle – 2013)
Recommendation8
Recommending
State/s
Position9
Ratification of international instruments
148.7. Ratify the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
Paraguay
Noted10
Migrants and refugees
148.146. Further enhance institutions and infrastructure for human rights,
policies and measures toward enhancing the social inclusion, gender equality
and non-discrimination, favourable conditions for vulnerable groups of women,
children, indigenous people, migrants and refugees.
Viet Nam
Supported
148.58. Create a database of disappeared and missing migrants, and that all
authorities cooperate to prevent and punish crimes against this group.
Norway
Supported
148.173. Continue to work towards the protection and defence of the rights of
migrants.
Argentina and
Bolivia
Supported
148.174. Continue to work with the countries of the region in special programs
that address the situation of criminality against migrants.
Nicaragua
Supported
148.175. Effectively protect and guarantee the safety and human rights of
migrants, especially women and children, including those that are in transit in the
national territory, ensuring their access to justice, education, health and civil
registry, incorporating the principle of the best interest of the child and the family
unit.
Holy See
Supported
148.176. Maintain the humane policy that ensures the protection of the rights of
migrants, and guarantee them access to justice, education and healthcare,
regardless of their status.
Nigeria
Supported
Gender Discrimination and SGBV
148.66. Enact and enforce laws to reduce incidences of violence against women
and girls.
Sierra Leone
Supported
8 All recommendations made to Mexico during its 2nd cycle UPR can be found in: “Report of the Working Group on the
Universal
Periodic
Review
of
Mexico”
(11
December
2013),
A/HRC/25/7,
available
at:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/MXindex.aspx.
9 Mexico’s views and replies, in Spanish, can be found in: Addendum (14 March 2014), A/HRC/25/7/Add.1, available at:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/MXindex.aspx.
10 Addendum: “Las disposiciones de la Convención no son compatibles con el artículo 37 apartado B, fracción II de la
Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (CPEUM), que indica que la nacionalidad mexicana por
naturalización se perderá por residir durante cinco años continuos en el extranjero. Tampoco es compatible con la Ley
de Nacionalidad, ya que ésta establece en su artículo 20 que el extranjero que pretenda naturalizarse mexicano deberá
acreditar que ha residido en territorio nacional cuando menos durante los últimos cinco años inmediatos anteriores a la
fecha de solicitud.”
AR643
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 105 of 175
7
148.67. Implement the designed public policy and launch a comprehensive
awareness-raising campaign to end gender-based violence that includes sexual
violence and feminicide.
Slovenia
Supported
148.70. Continue to prevent and combat violence against women, guaranteeing
women’s access to justice and continue to improve support services.
State of Palestine
Supported
148.71. Ensure investigations of violence against women, and establish victim
support programmes for affected women.
Maldives
Supported
148.76. Make a priority the prevention and punishment of all forms of violence
against women.
France
Supported
148.79. Continue to take the necessary measures to prevent violence against
women, particularly migrant women and penalise those who commit these acts
of violence.
Nicaragua
Supported
148.102. Reinforce training of police and justice officials on the issue of violence
against women in order to improve the response by the Mexican authorities
Portugal
Supported
Children
148.81. Set up a comprehensive system to protect children’s rights and develop
a national strategy to prevent and address all forms of violence.
Iran (Islamic
Republic of)
Supported
148.82. Ensure a better protection for children and adolescents against violence
related to organized crime.
Algeria
Supported
148.83. Enhance the dissemination of information and figures regarding children
and young persons who fall victims to the struggle against drug trafficking.
Italy
Supported
148.110. Continue its efforts to ensure the protection of children’s rights,
including by fully implementing the 2012 federal justice for adolescents act and
considering implementing of restorative justice system.
Indonesia
Supported
Access to rights
148.144. Focus on marginalised groups or disadvantaged sections of society. Of
particular relevance would be measures to improve health and education.
India
Supported
148.145. Continue strengthening its social policies with a view of increasing the
standard of living of its people, especially the most vulnerable.
Venezuela and
Trinidad and
Tobago
Supported
148.151. Continue efforts to design housing financing schemes for the care of
the population working within the informal market economy.
Ecuador
Supported
148.154. Intensify efforts to guarantee universal access to health services,
information and education on health and sexual and reproductive rights,
particularly for adolescents.
Uruguay
Supported
148.163. Allocate more resources to education for vulnerable students and the
disabled.
South Sudan
Supported
Torture, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances
148.52. Pursue efforts to ensure that complaints in cases of torture, arbitrary
detention and disappearances are duly investigated.
Turkey
Supported
148.58. Create a database of disappeared and missing migrants, and that all
authorities cooperate to prevent and punish crimes against this group.
Norway
Supported
148.103. Further pursue the full investigation of alleged incidents of human rights
violations by the police force, especially within detention centres.
Cyprus
Supported
Trafficking
148.84. Consider establishing mechanisms aimed at early identification, referral,
assistance and support for victims of trafficking.
Egypt
Supported
148.85. Increase funding for federal human trafficking prosecutors and take
steps to end the impunity for public officials complicit in trafficking.
Norway
Supported
148.86. Continue its policies and efforts to combat human trafficking especially
those of women and children.
Bolivia, Singapore
and Costa Rica
Supported
AR644
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 106 of 175
8
148.89. Strengthen measures to combat human trafficking, including violence
against migrants.
Algeria
and
Sri
Lanka
Supported
II. Treaty Bodies
Committee on Enforced Disappearances
Concluding Observations, (5 March 2015), CED/C/MEX/CO/1
Disappearances of migrants
23. The Committee is concerned by reports that there have been numerous cases of
disappearances of migrants, including migrant children, and that these cases include cases of
enforced disappearance. It also notes with concern the challenges that this dramatic situation
poses for full observance of the rights to justice and truth embodied in the Convention, particularly
since the relatives of the disappeared persons are not normally resident in the State party. In this
regard, the Committee notes the information provided by the State party in relation to the
investigation of disappearances of migrants and its efforts to locate them and provide support and
protection. It also notes that the State party is working on the design of a transnational search and
access to justice mechanism for such persons (arts. 1, 3, 12, 15 and 24).
24. In conjunction with countries of origin and countries of destination, and with input from
victims and civil society, the State party should redouble its efforts to prevent and
investigate disappearances of migrants, to prosecute those responsible and to provide
adequate protection for complainants, experts, witnesses and defence counsels. The
transnational search and access to justice mechanism should guarantee: (a) that searches
are conducted for disappeared migrants and that, if human remains are found, they are
identified and returned; (b) that ante-mortem information is compiled and entered into the
ante-mortem/post-mortem database; and (c) that the relatives of the disappeared persons,
irrespective of where they reside, have the opportunity to obtain information and take part in
the investigations and the search for the disappeared persons.
Register of persons deprived of their liberty
34. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the State party regarding the
information that should be entered in the Detention Registry System and the administrative arrest
log. However, the Committee regrets that it has not received detailed information about the records
kept in all places in which persons might be deprived of their liberty, such as migrant holding
facilities or military detention centres (arts. 17 and 22).
35. The State party should adopt the necessary measures to guarantee that:
(a) All deprivations of liberty are entered in uniform registers and/or records which
include, as a minimum, the information required under article 17, paragraph 3, of the
Convention;
(b) All registers and/or records of persons deprived of liberty are filled out and updated
promptly and accurately;
(c) All registers and/or records of persons deprived of liberty are subject to periodic
checks and, in the event of irregularities, the officers responsible are disciplined.
Committee on Migrants Workers
Concluding Observations, (27 September 2017), CMW/C/MEX/CO/3
Participación de la sociedad civil
21. El Comité mantiene su especial preocupación ante la vulneración de derechos humanos de los
defensores de los migrantes. Observa que son objeto de violencia y amenazas por parte del
crimen organizado y redes de tráfico de personas, incluso en connivencia con autoridades, así
como de actos de hostigamiento y deslegitimación del trabajo de esas organizaciones por parte de
agentes migratorios, distintos cuerpos de seguridad gubernamentales y empresas privadas que
AR645
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 107 of 175
9
gestionan acciones de control migratorio o prestan servicios de vigilancia de transporte en rutas
migratorias.
22. El Comité reitera su recomendación anterior (véase CMW/C/MEX/CO/2, párr. 52), e invita
al Estado parte a que adopte medidas efectivas, agiles e integrals para:
(a) Garantizar la vida, libertad e integridad de defensores de derechos humanos de la
población migrante, incluyendo medidas para prevenir, investigar y sancionar
adecuadamente las agresiones y abusos en su contra;
(b) Reconocer públicamente su labor, incluyendo el establecimiento de un registro de
casos de denuncias, investigaciones realizadas y casos resueltos para ser
presentados en el siguiente informe periódico; c) Facilitar el ejercicio de su labor,
incluyendo su acceso amplio a los centros de detención migratoria, los albergues y
otros establecimientos afines.
No discriminación
25. El Comité toma nota del marco jurídico del Estado parte para asegurar la no discriminación.
Sin embargo, le preocupan informes sobre el aumento de la xenofobia a nivel social e institucional
y el rol de los medios de comunicación en crear y mantener estereotipos contra los migrantes.
También le preocupa la información recibida sobre procedimientos de control y verificación
migratoria que se realizan con base en el perfil étnico de las personas.
26. El Comité reitera su recomendación anterior (véase CMW/C/MEX/CO/2, párr. 24), y
asimismo alienta al Estado parte a que establezca medidas de prevención y sanción ante la
criminalización de las personas migrantes en mensajes de diferentes actores sociales y
políticos. Recomienda la realización de campañas de educación, comunicación e
información social, así como que se detecten y eliminen las practices discriminatorias en
las instituciones públicas y privadas, incluyendo los procedimientos migratorios de control
y verificación.
27. Preocupan al Comité informes según los cuales los migrantes con estancias por razones
humanitarias enfrentan obstáculos para recibir la Clave Única de Registro de Población, que es un
requerimiento para acceder a derechos y beneficios sociales.
28. El Comité recomienda que el Estado parte tome medidas inmediatas para facilitar el
acceso de los migrantes y solicitantes del estatuto de refugiado con estancias por razones
humanitarias a la Clave Única de Registro de Población, en línea con los artículos 25 y 27
de la Convención.
Protección de violencia, lesión física, amenaza e intimidación
33. El Comité expresa su profunda preocupación por las graves irregularidades en las
investigaciones para identificar a los responsables y las víctimas de las masacres en los estados
de Tamaulipas y Nuevo León entre 2010 y 2012, por las que no hay personas sancionadas, por el
impacto extremamente grave de la desaparición forzada de personas en los migrantes y
mexicanos en tránsito y por los altos niveles de violencia de género, especialmente en la frontera
sur. Al Comité le preocupan mucho las alegaciones sobre la participación de autoridades públicas,
particularmente policías federales, estatales y municipales, la alta impunidad que suele afectar a
estos crímenes y los bajos niveles de denuncias. Asimismo, expresa su preocupación por los
obstáculos que enfrentan los sobrevivientes de esos crímenes para la regularización por razones
humanitarias.
34. El Comité reitera su recomendación anterior (véase CMW/C/MEX/CO/2, párr. 30) y
asimismo urge al Estado parte a que:
(a) Asegure que se investiguen seria y diligentemente esos actos, incluyendo la relación
de agentes estatales con estructuras criminales y delitos como la corrupción y la
impunidad, y se adopten sanciones proporcionales a la gravedad del delito cometido;
(b) Investigue exhaustiva y ágilmente las masacres en los estados de Tamaulipas y
Nuevo León bajo la clasificación de graves violaciones a los derechos humanos;
AR646
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 108 of 175
10
(c) Gestione la ampliación del mandato y el financiamiento de la Comisión Forense a
efecto de garantizar un cruce gradual de información forense de personas migrantes
desaparecidas de otros casos además de las tres masacres;
(d) Garantice la implementación del Mecanismo de Apoyo Exterior Mexicano de
Búsqueda e Investigación en los diferentes países de América Central, asegurando
que las personas migrantes y sus familiares tengan acceso fácil a las instituciones
federales estatales e información sobre las investigaciones y participen en el proceso,
incluyendo a través de la creación de unidades permanentes en embajadas y
consulados del Estado parte;
(e) Asegure
la
cooperación
efectiva
con
comisiones
de
expertos
y
grupos
multidisciplinarios de los países de origen y destino para asistir a las personas
migrantes víctimas de delitos graves, incluyendo desapariciones forzadas, así como
en la búsqueda, localización y liberación de las personas desaparecidas y, en caso de
fallecimiento, en la exhumación, la identificación y la restitución digna de sus restos;
(f) Garantice que las víctimas sean identificadas y remitidas a los servicios apropiados y
sensibles a sus circunstancias, incluyendo servicios médicos y psicosociales, y que a
petición de las víctimas se solicite la cooperación de las organizaciones sociales;
(g) Garantice que los sobrevivientes de esos crímenes tengan acceso a la regularización
por razones humanitarias;
(h) Sancione a los responsables, con penas adecuadas a la gravedad del delito,
incluyendo a los funcionarios del Estado involucrados.
Gestión de las fronteras y protección de migrantes en tránsito
35. El Comité toma nota del esfuerzo que realiza el Estado parte para enfrentar al crimen
organizado y brindar seguridad integral a las personas en su territorio. Observa con preocupación,
sin embargo, el aumento significativo de los crímenes contra migrantes y de los riesgos a lo largo
del tránsito por el territorio mexicano, en rutas alternativas usadas por los migrantes y sus
familiares a fin de evitar los múltiples dispositivos de control migratorio desplegados por el Estado.
36. El Comité recomienda al Estado parte que evalúe de manera exhaustiva y en diálogo
con todos los actores concernidos el impacto de los operativos de verificación migratoria
en el aumento de los riesgos del derecho a la vida y la integridad física de la población
migrante en tránsito y que se adopten las medidas necesarias para prevenir esos riesgos,
proteger a esta población y, en particular, promover que las políticas y prácticas
migratorias estén centradas en el enfoque de derechos humanos y de seguridad humana,
incluyendo la creación de vías seguras y regulares.
Privación de la libertad
37. El Comité expresa su profunda preocupación respecto del elevado número de medidas
privativas de la libertad de migrantes en las 58 estaciones migratorias desplegadas a lo largo del
país. Le preocupan las alegaciones de la delegación de que estas detenciones (llamadas
“aseguramiento” o “presentación”) no constituirían una privación de la libertad, o son descritas
como una medida de protección o un beneficio. También le preocupa la presencia en esos centros
de familias, mujeres embarazadas, víctimas de la trata, solicitantes de asilo y otras personas en
situaciones de mayor vulnerabilidad y con necesidades especiales de protección. Asimismo, nota
con especial preocupación la detención de niños, niñas y adolescentes —que aumentó en un
900% entre 2011 y 2016—, muchos de ellos no acompañados, así como de muy baja edad. Esa
medida constituye, sin excepción, una violación de los derechos del niño y de su interés superior.
38. El Comité recomienda al Estado parte, con carácter de urgencia, que:
(a) Adopte con carácter de urgencia todas las medidas necesarias para poner fin
inmediato a la privación de libertad de niños, niñas y adolescentes, así como de
familias migrantes, garantizando en la ley y la práctica medidas alternativas
adecuadas, centradas exclusivamente en la protección de los derechos bajo la Ley
General de los Derechos de Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes;
(b) Garantice la aplicación efectiva e inmediata de procesos de identificación y referencia
de personas en situaciones de vulnerabilidad y su traslado a alojamientos
AR647
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 109 of 175
11
alternativos;
(c) Elabore un plan de acción dirigido a garantizar que la privación de libertad por
razones migratorias de trabajadores migratorios adultos únicamente se aplica como
medida de último recurso y por el menor tiempo posible, sobre la base de los
principios de excepcionalidad, proporcionalidad, necesidad y razonabilidad;
(d) Garantice en la ley y en la práctica la existencia de medidas alternativas a la privación
de la libertad para trabajadores migratorios en situación irregular, las cuales deben
aplicarse de manera prioritaria y con base en las circunstancias de cada persona, por
las autoridades administrativas y/o judiciales correspondientes;
(e) Asegure que los trabajadores migrantes sean informados sobre los procedimientos y
derechos en un idioma que entienden.
Garantías procesales en casos de privación de la libertad
39. El Comité nota con preocupación que las detenciones llevadas adelante por el INM se realizan
a través de una modalidad automática, sin una adecuada fundamentación individualizada sobre su
necesidad y razonabilidad. Observa que la detención sin debidas garantías procesales, como la
obligación de remisión inmediata ante un juez independiente e imparcial y el derecho a la
asistencia jurídica gratuita, es considerada arbitraria, en línea con la Convención y otros tratados.
Le preocupan también los datos sobre la falta de información brindada a migrantes sobre las
razones de su detención, los derechos y recursos disponibles, incluyendo el derecho a solicitar
asilo, protección complementaria o una estancia por razones humanitarias. Se inquieta asimismo
de que el ejercicio de los recursos disponibles puede llevar a una detención sin plazo máximo, y
sobre el acceso restringido que tienen los abogados de organizaciones sociales para brindar
asistencia y representación legal.
40. El Comité urge al Estado parte a que:
(a) Asegure en los procedimientos de detención migratoria las debidas garantías
procesales, incluyendo el derecho a un intérprete;
(b) Adopte todas las medidas dirigidas a garantizar el derecho a la asistencia y
representación jurídica gratuita en procedimientos de detención migratoria,
incluyendo la provisión de recursos y capacitación al Instituto Federal de Defensoría
Pública. De forma complementaria, se recomienda la realización de convenios con
organizaciones de la sociedad civil especializadas en dicha asistencia;
(c) Garantice que la detención migratoria sea una medida excepcional, de último recurso
y limitada al menor tiempo posible, que esté fundamentada en el caso concreto,
incluyendo las razones por las cuales no pueden ser aplicadas las medidas
alternativas, y sea revisada en menos de 24 horas por una autoridad judicial
independiente e imparcial; d) Garantice el derecho al acceso a justicia, sin que ello
redunde en una extensión de la detención en aplicación del artículo 111.V de la Ley de
Migración, para evitar que la persona que accede a una medida alternativa o solicite
asilo tenga plazo indefinido de detención mientras se resuelve su petición.
Condiciones de detención
41. Al Comité le preocupan las condiciones de detención de la población migrante en el Estado
parte. Observa con mucha preocupación que, en ocasiones, constituyen un tratamiento cruel,
inhumano y degradante.
42. El Comité reitera su recomendación anterior (véase CMW/C/MEX/CO/2, párr. 34), e insta
al Estado parte a garantizar condiciones dignas y adecuadas en los centros de detención
migratoria, los cuales no pueden tener similares características y finalidades que un ámbito
penitenciario. En particular, el Comité le recomienda que:
(a) Brinde servicios adecuados de salud y sensibles al género, incluyendo salud sexual y
reproductiva, asistencia psicológica, agua, saneamiento e higiene, alimentación,
actividades recreativas y de ocio;
(b) Erradique de forma inmediata el uso de celdas de castigo;
(c) Ponga fin a cualquier situación de sobrepoblación y hacinamiento;
(d) Investigue y sancione adecuadamente a los agentes estatales que violen los derechos
AR648
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 110 of 175
12
de migrantes en esos centros;
(e) Capacite a los agentes estatales en los centros de detención, sobre derechos
humanos, igualdad de género, el interés superior de los niños, niñas y adolescentes,
y no discriminación;
(f) Implemente las recomendaciones de la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos y
garantice la plena aplicación del Mecanismo Nacional de Prevención de la Tortura.
Expulsión
43. El Comité está muy preocupado por el aumento significativo de expulsiones de personas de El
Salvador, Guatemala y Honduras. Se inquieta profundamente por que el llamado “retorno
voluntario y asistido” se aplica mientras las personas están privadas de libertad, sin asistencia
jurídica e información adecuada, y sin alternativas para su regularización. Observa con
preocupación el elevado número de personas que desisten de la solicitud del estatuto de
refugiado y que las medidas de retorno puedan disponerse sin indagar adecuadamente sobre
posibles riesgos para la vida y la integridad física de la persona en el país de origen.
44. El Comité recomienda al Estado parte que:
(a) Vele por que las personas sujetas a una orden administrativa de expulsión o retorno,
o que soliciten el estatuto de refugiado, gocen de servicios de asistencia y
representación jurídica gratuita, y conozcan y puedan ejercer su derecho a interponer
recursos efectivos;
(b) Elabore mecanismos para impedir la expulsión de los migrantes hasta tanto se haya
evaluado de manera adecuada cada situación individual, a fin, entre otras cosas, de
asegurarse de que no se afecte el principio de no devolución ni la prohibición de
expulsiones arbitrarias o colectivas;
(c) Refuerce la implementación de políticas y mecanismos dirigidos a brindar alternativas
a la expulsión o retorno, incluyendo el derecho al asilo, la protección complementaria,
la estancia por razones humanitarias y otras formas de regularización.
Atención médica
49. El Comité toma nota de que el Estado parte permite la afiliación al Seguro Popular de toda
persona, sin presentar documentación alguna, pero le preocupa que este seguro sea válido
solamente por 90 días. Asimismo, está preocupado porque muchos trabajadores migrantes
indocumentados no acceden a los servicios de salud porque temen su detención y deportación.
50. El Comité recomienda que se reforme el artículo 42 del reglamento de la Ley General de
Salud en Materia de Protección Social en Salud, para asegurar la afiliación ilimitada de los
trabajadores migrantes y sus familiares al Seguro Popular. Asimismo, recomienda que se
adopten medidas para asegurar que los migrantes indocumentados accedan a servicios
médicos de atención a la salud y no sean denunciados a las autoridades de inmigración.
Registro de nacimiento y nacionalidad
51. El Comité toma nota del gran incremento del registro de nacionalidad mexicana de niños
nacidos en los Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, le preocupan los problemas que enfrentan los
mexicanos indocumentados en ese país para registrar el nacimiento de sus hijos, por los
obstáculos que tienen para validar el acta de nacimiento en territorio mexicano debido a la
exigencia de traducción y legalización, y por la insuficiente información para que los padres
registren en consulados mexicanos el nacimiento de sus hijos. Todo ello deriva en barreras para
obtener un documento de identidad y su nacionalidad, así como para acceder a la educación y
otros servicios sociales una vez que las familias retornan a México.
52. El Comité recomienda fomentar la inscripción de nacimiento en los consulados
mexicanos y sensibilizar a las madres sobre la importancia del registro oportuno de la
doble nacionalidad. Asimismo, recomienda que se brinde información y asistencia a padres
indocumentados para que puedan registrar los nacimientos ante autoridades de los
Estados Unidos. Sugiere que se establezca en México un procedimiento simplificado de
registro de la nacionalidad mexicana de niños con padres mexicanos, evitando requisitos
AR649
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 111 of 175
13
inaccesibles como la traducción y notarización del documento en los Estados Unidos
cuando la familia ya ha salido de ese país. En cualquier caso, se recomienda garantizar el
acceso a la educación y otros servicios sociales a los hijos de mexicanos que retornan, sin
perjuicio de su documentación o nacionalidad.
Educación
53. El Comité toma nota de los esfuerzos del Estado parte para eliminar las barreras
administrativas para el acceso a la educación de la niñez migrante. También observa que muchos
niños, niñas y adolescentes migrantes sin documentos no acceden a los servicios de educación
por discriminación o por temor a su detención y deportación.
54. El Comité urge al Estado parte a que tome medidas legislativas y práctica para asegurar
que se adopten e implementen de manera efectiva las nuevas normas al nivel estatal y
local, y que se incluyan medidas para asegurar que la niñez migrante sin documentos no
sea discriminada ni denunciada a las autoridades de inmigración.
Niños, niñas y adolescentes en el contexto de migración internacional
55. El Comité observa con mucha preocupación que aún restan numerosos desafíos pendientes
para la plena implementación de la Ley General de los Derechos de Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes.
Junto a la preocupación por la detención de decenas de miles de niños, niñas y adolescentes en
estaciones migratorias, le preocupa especialmente lo siguiente:
(a) La falta de implementación de los procedimientos de determinación del interés superior del
niño previstos en la Ley de Migración y la Ley General de los Derechos de Niñas, Niños y
Adolescentes;
(b) La insuficiente creación o adecuación a la Ley General de los Derechos de Niñas, Niños y
Adolescentes de procuradurías locales de protección de niños, niñas y adolescentes y
autoridades competentes;
(c) La ausencia de mecanismos para garantizar la asistencia jurídica a niños, niñas y
adolescentes en procedimientos migratorios, así como la falta de un tutor para niños no
acompañados;
(d) La ausencia de mecanismos que garanticen la participación efectiva y el derecho a ser oído
de los niños, niñas y adolescentes en todos los procedimientos que les afecten, y a ser
debidamente tenidos en cuenta;
(e) El impacto grave que tienen la violencia y la persecución a los niños, niñas y adolescentes
de El Salvador, Guatemala y Honduras, los abusos que sufren en su tránsito por el territorio
mexicano, y las situaciones de explotación laboral de niños, niñas y adolescentes en el sur
del país;
(f) El retorno de niños, niñas y adolescentes a sus países de origen sin una previa evaluación y
determinación de su interés superior que permita aplicar otras medidas de protección
inmediatas y sostenibles;
(g) La escasa proporción de niños, niñas y adolescentes que acceden a los procedimientos de
solicitud del estatuto de refugiado, y la alta incidencia del desistimiento de esas solicitudes.
56. El Comité recomienda al Estado parte que:
(a) Implemente a la mayor brevedad posible un procedimiento interinstitucional de
determinación del interés superior del niño, coordinado por la Procuraduría Federal
de Protección de Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes en el marco del Sistema de Protección
Integral de Niños Niñas y Adolescentes y de la Ley General de los Derechos de Niñas,
Niños y Adolescentes, asegurando las debidas garantías procesales, incluyendo el
derecho a la información y asistencia jurídica gratuita por parte de profesionales
especializados en derechos de niños, niñas y adolescentes, y en caso de niños no
acompañados, de un tutor, el cual debe velar por el interés superior de los niños,
niñas y adolescentes en todo el proceso;
(b) Asegure que los sistemas e instituciones de protección de niños, niñas y
adolescentes funcionen independientemente del INM y cuenten con las capacidades
necesarias para aplicar el principio del interés superior de los niños, niñas y
adolescentes, y que esas decisiones tengan prioridad respecto de otras
AR650
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 112 of 175
14
consideraciones relativas a la condición migratoria;
(c) Redoble los esfuerzos para prevenir la violencia, abuso y explotación de los niños,
niñas y adolescentes migrantes, protegerlos frente a esos crímenes, e investigue,
juzgue y sancione a los responsables, incluyendo agentes estatales;
(d) Asegure que los niños, niñas y adolescentes tengan acceso inmediato a
procedimientos relacionados a la regularización y protección internacional, y que las
políticas migratorias respeten los derechos de los niños, niñas y adolescentes en
línea con los instrumentos internacionales, incluyendo el principio de no devolución;
(e) Continúe desarrollando y finalice el sistema de datos desglosados sobre la protección
de niños, niñas y adolescentes migrantes, refugiados y solicitantes de asilo;
(f) Asegure su acceso a la educación y salud;
(g) Adopte medidas de protección integral para atender la situación de niños, niñas y
adolescentes migrantes que viven en la calle, así como en situaciones de explotación
laboral en plantaciones de café, explotación por el crimen organizado y explotación
sexual, entre otras;
(h) Implemente las recomendaciones de la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos.
Cooperación internacional con países de tránsito y destino
59. El Comité toma nota de los procesos regionales existentes en materia migratoria, en particular
la Conferencia Regional sobre Migración. Le preocupan sin embargo los desafíos existentes en la
región en materia de las causas de la migración (violencia, pobreza, entre otros), así como para la
protección de los derechos de migrantes y sus familias.
60. El Comité alienta al Estado parte a promover acuerdos y planes de acción regionales,
desde un enfoque de derechos, dirigidos a abordar las causas estructurales de la
migración (violencia, pobreza, entre otros) y a garantizar los derechos de toda la población
migrante y sus familias, sin perjuicio de su condición migratoria.
Committee on the Rights of the Child
Concluding Observations, (3 July 2015), CRC/C/MEX/CO/4-5
Non-discrimination
15. While taking note of the National Programme for Equality and Non-Discrimination (2014–2018),
the Committee is concerned about the prevalence of discrimination against indigenous, Afro-
Mexican and migrant children, children with disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and
intersex children, children in street situations and children living in poverty and in rural areas.
16. The Committee recommends that the State party:
(a) Adopt a road map that includes adequate resources, a timeline and measurable
targets requiring authorities at the federal, state and local levels to take measures,
including affirmative measures, to prevent and eliminate all forms of de facto
discrimination against indigenous, Afro-Mexican and migrant children, children with
disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex children, children in
street situations and children living in poverty and in rural areas;
(b) Ensure that the authorities, civil servants, the media, teachers, children and the
general public are sensitized to the negative impact of stereotypes on children’s rights
and take all necessary measures to prevent these negative stereotypes, notably by
encouraging the media to adopt codes of conduct;
(c) Facilitate child-friendly complaint mechanisms in educational establishments, health
centres, juvenile detention centres, alternative-care institutions and any other setting
and ensure that perpetrators of discrimination are adequately sanctioned.
17. The Committee expresses deep concern about the persistent patriarchal attitudes and gender
stereotypes that discriminate against girls and women, resulting in an extremely high prevalence of
violence against women and girls in the State party.
AR651
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 113 of 175
15
18. The Committee urges the State party to accord the utmost priority to the elimination of
patriarchal attitudes and gender stereotypes that discriminate against girls and women,
including through educational and awareness-raising programmes.
Best interests of the child
19. While noting the constitutional recognition of the right of the child to have his or her best
interests taken into account as a primary consideration, the Committee is concerned at reports that
this right has not been consistently applied in practice.
20. In the light of its general comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or
her best interests taken as a primary consideration, the Committee recommends that the
State party strengthen its efforts to ensure that this right is appropriately integrated and
consistently applied in all legislative, administrative and judicial proceedings and decisions
as well as in all policies, programmes and projects that are relevant to and have an impact
on children. In this regard, the State party is encouraged to develop procedures and criteria
to provide guidance to all relevant persons in authority for determining the best interests of
the child in every area and for giving them due weight as a primary consideration.
Respect for the views of the child
25. While noting the initiatives taken to foster child participation, such as the annual organization of
the “parliament of the girls and boys of Mexico”, the Committee regrets the lack of permanent
forums aimed at promoting child participation. It is also concerned at reports that children’s
opinions are not consistently heard in judicial and administrative proceedings.
26. In the light of its general comment No. 12 (2009) on the right of the child to be heard, the
Committee recommends that the State party:
[…]
(b) Effectively implement legislation recognizing the right of the child to be heard in
relevant judicial and administrative proceedings, including by monitoring the
implementation of the protocol for the administration of justice in cases involving
children.
Birth registration
27. While welcoming the constitutional reform of 2014 recognizing the right to birth registration, the
Committee is concerned that the number of indigenous, Afro-Mexican and migrant children and
children living in remote areas who are registered at birth remains low.
28. The Committee recommends that the State party strengthen efforts to ensure universal
birth registration, including by undertaking the necessary legal reforms and adopting the
required procedures at the state and municipal levels. Registry offices or mobile units
should be available in all maternity units, in the main points of transit or destination of
migrants and in communities where children are born with traditional birth attendants.
Sexual exploitation and abuse
33. While noting the adoption of a protocol to assist child victims of sexual abuse, the Committee is
concerned about the high prevalence of sexual violence against children, in particular girls. The
Committee is seriously concerned that perpetrators of rape can escape punishment if they marry
the victim. It is also concerned that the current proposal to reform the Federal Penal Code with
regard to the statute of limitation for crimes of sexual abuse against children does not adequately
protect the rights of children. It is also concerned that insufficient efforts are being made to identify,
protect and rehabilitate child victims and about the increasing number of cases of sexual violence
in education centres.
34. The Committee urges the State party to:
(a) Review legislation at the federal and state levels to ensure that rape is criminalized in
line with international standards and remove all legal provisions that can be used to
excuse perpetrators of child sexual abuse;
AR652
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 114 of 175
16
(b) Ensure that the reform of the Federal Penal Code provides for no statute of limitation
regarding both the sanctions and the criminal action in relation to crimes of sexual
abuse against children, and that sanctions cover both the perpetrators and the
abettors. Similar provisions should be adopted in all state penal codes;
(c) Establish mechanisms, procedures and guidelines to make it mandatory to report
cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation and ensure the availability of child-
friendly complaints mechanisms, in particular in schools;
(d) Prevent, investigate and prosecute all cases of sexual abuse of children and
adequately punish those convicted;
(e) Provide training for judges, lawyers, prosecutors, the police and other relevant
persons on how to deal with child victims of sexual violence and on how gender
stereotyping by the judiciary affects girls’ right to a fair trial in cases of sexual
violence, and closely monitor trials in which children are involved;
(f) Effectively implement the protocol to assist child victims of sexual abuse and ensure
quality services and resources to protect them, provide them with physical and
psychological recovery and social reintegration and compensate them;
(g) Raise awareness to prevent child sexual abuse, inform the general public that such
abuse is a crime and address victim stigmatization, particularly when the alleged
perpetrators are relatives.
Standard of living
53. The Committee remains deeply concerned about the prevalence of child poverty, which affects
more than half of the child population, a higher rate than affects the adult population. It is
concerned that indigenous, Afro-Mexican, migrant and displaced children, children in single-parent
households and children living in rural areas are particularly affected by poverty and extreme
poverty.
54. The Committee recommends that the State party strengthen its efforts to eliminate child
poverty by adopting a public policy developed in consultation with families, children and
civil society organizations, including those from indigenous, Afro-Mexican, displaced,
migrant and rural communities, and by allocating adequate resources for its
implementation. Measures to promote early childhood development and further support
families should be part of the policy.
Education, including vocational training and guidance
55. The Committee notes the educational reform undertaken in 2013 aimed at ensuring quality
education from preschool to senior high school. However, it is concerned about:
(a) Millions of children between 3 and 17 years of age who do not attend school;
(b) Persistent challenges for children in vulnerable situations in accessing quality education;
(c) High rates of school dropouts, particularly among students in secondary education, pregnant
adolescents and adolescent mothers;
(d) The low coverage of early childhood education and the lack of public policies in this regard.
56. In the light of its general comment No. 1 (2001) on the aims of education, the
Committee reiterates its recommendations (see CRC/C/MEX/CO/3, para. 57 (a–e)) and
recommends that the State party:
(a) Increase its efforts to improve the quality of education and its availability and
accessibility to girls, indigenous, Afro-Mexican and displaced children, children in
rural areas, children living in poverty, children in street situations, national and
international migrant children and children with disabilities, by substantially
increasing the education budget and reviewing relevant policies;
(b) Strengthen its efforts to ensure education in Spanish and in indigenous languages for
indigenous children and ensure the availability of trained teachers;
(c) Strengthen measures to address school dropouts, taking into consideration the
particular reasons why boys and girls drop out;
(d) Step up its efforts to ensure that pregnant adolescents and adolescent mothers are
AR653
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 115 of 175
17
supported and assisted in continuing their education in mainstream schools;
(e) Develop and expand early childhood education from birth, on the basis of a
comprehensive and holistic policy of early childhood care and development.
Asylum-seeking and refugee children
57. The Committee is concerned about:
(a) The lack of adequate measures to identify, assist and protect asylum-seeking and refugee
children, including the lack of legal representation for unaccompanied children;
(b) The prolonged detention of asylum-seeking children;
(c) The lack of data on the number of asylum claims made by children and the information by
the State party that only 18 children were granted refugee status in 2014.
58. The Committee recommends that the State party:
(a) Increase its efforts to identify, assist and protect asylum-seeking and refugee
children, including by adopting the necessary legislative, administrative and logistical
measures. Legal guardians, free legal representation, interpretation and consular
assistance should be ensured for them;
(b) Take the measures necessary to end the administrative detention of asylum-seeking
children and expeditiously place unaccompanied children in community-based
shelters, and accompanied children in appropriate facilities that ensure family unity
and are compliant with the Convention;
(c) Collect disaggregated data on asylum-seeking and refugee children;
(d) Complete the withdrawal of the remaining reservations to the 1951 Convention relating
to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.
Children in situations of migration
59. The Committee welcomes the adoption of a protocol on consular assistance for
unaccompanied migrant children as well as the attention given by the State party to the plight of
unaccompanied children on its territory, in particular its increasing collaboration with countries in
the region to assist those children and protect them from violence. It is nevertheless concerned
about:
(a) Migrant children being kept in detention centres for migrants and reports of violence and
abuse against children in those centres;
(b) Migrant children being subjected to killings, kidnappings, disappearances, sexual violence,
exploitation and abuse, and about the lack of official disaggregated data in this regard;
(c) Reports that many migrant children are deported without a preliminary process to determine
their best interests, in spite of the legal recognition of the principle in the law on migration
and the General Act on the Rights of Children and Adolescents;
(d) The insufficient measures taken to ensure the rights of national migrants as well as the rights
of the many children displaced as a result of armed violence.
60. The Committee recommends that the State party:
(a) Take all measures necessary to end the administrative detention of migrant children
and continue to establish community-based shelters for them, in accordance with
articles 94 and 95 of the General Act on the Rights of Children and Adolescents,
ensuring that these shelters comply with the Convention and are regularly monitored.
The protocol for assisting unaccompanied migrant children in shelters should be
effectively implemented and regularly evaluated;
(b) Increase efforts to prevent killings, kidnappings, disappearances, sexual violence,
exploitation and abuse of migrant children, and investigate, prosecute and punish
perpetrators, including when the perpetrator is an agent of the State;
(c) Establish a best interests determination process for decisions relating to migrant
children and always carry out due process with procedural safeguards to determine
the individual circumstances, needs and best interests of the child prior to making a
decision on his or her deportation. Special attention should be given to family
reunification;
AR654
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 116 of 175
18
(d) Ensure that migrant children are informed about their legal status, ensuring that they
fully understand their situation, and provide public defence services and/or guardians
throughout the process. Children should also be informed that they can contact their
consular services;
(e) Ensure that all relevant professionals working with or for migrant children, in
particular border and immigration personnel, social workers, defence lawyers,
guardians and police officers, are adequately trained and speak the native language of
the children;
(f) Adopt comprehensive measures to provide assistance to national migrant and
displaced children and ensure their access to education and health services and their
protection from violence;
(g) Collect disaggregated data related to cases of violence against migrant and displaced
children, including disappearances and enforced disappearances.
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Concluding Observations, (27 October 2014), CRPD/C/MEX/CO/1
Liberty of movement and nationality (art. 18)
39. The Committee is concerned that migrants with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities are
detained in migrant holding centres, that the authorities set stricter requirements for entry into the
country for persons with disabilities and that persons injured as a result of falling from the train
known as “La Bestia” (“The Beast”) receive inadequate care.
40. The Committee urges the State party to:
(a) Designate appropriate and accessible areas and appoint trained staff to assist
persons with disabilities in migrant holding centres;
(b) Review and harmonize the operational guidelines under the Migration Act to ensure
that persons with disabilities are treated equally in the issuance of visas and entry
permits;
(c) Review and harmonize care protocols for migrants who are injured while in transit in
Mexico, so that they are provided with not only emergency medical care but also
sufficient recovery time and basic rehabilitation.
41. The Committee notes that the steps taken to promote the registration of children with the civil
registry have not led to the universal registration of children with disabilities.
42. The Committee urges the State party to ensure that all children with disabilities are
immediately registered at birth and are provided with an identity document.
III. Special Procedures Mandate Holders
Report by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment on his mission to Mexico
Addendum: Mission to Mexico (29 December 2014) A/HRC/28/68/Add.3
Assessment of the situation
Migrants
72. Because of its location, Mexico is one of the main countries of origin, destination, transit and
return of migrants. Migrants are extremely vulnerable to acts of violence by private individuals. The
Special Rapporteur is concerned about the impunity that usually surrounds such crimes and the
information he received that public employees collude in or tolerate such practices. Moreover,
migrant arrests by public employees tend to be violent and accompanied by insults, threats and
humiliation.
AR655
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 117 of 175
19
73. The conditions observed at the Siglo XXI migrant holding centre in Tapachula (Chiapas) are
generally adequate for short periods of detention. However, detainees who lodge appeals generally
spend long periods in detention. The Government should restrict the use of detention to exceptional
cases, improve conditions of detention and avoid prolonged periods of detention. Unaccompanied
boys are housed in the holding centre, while unaccompanied girls are taken to public and private
hostels where conditions are generally poor and there is no proper supervision to detect trafficking
and identify needs. The Special Rapporteur notes that, while he received no complaints or ill-
treatment or torture at the Siglo XXI centre, he did receive complaints about incidents at several of
the country’s migrant holding centres, in which migrants were insulted, threatened, humiliated and
beaten. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that lawyers and civil society organizations have
limited access to holding centres to monitor and assist migrants.
Recommendations
87. With regard to migrants:
(a) Take steps to reduce the violence to which they are exposed, including due
investigation and punishment of those responsible;
(b) Facilitate access by civil society organizations and lawyers to migrant holding
centres and to confidential interviews with migrants.
Report by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on his
mission to Mexico,
Addendum: Mission to Mexico (28 April 2014) A/HRC/26/36/Add.1
Vulnerable persons
Migrants
74. Undocumented migrants who transit through Mexico put their lives at serious risk, although it is
difficult to obtain reliable figures on the numbers killed.6 Reportedly, there is a direct link between
disappearances and killings of migrants, organized crime, and complicity of law enforcement,
investigative and other authorities. Migrant shelters have been subject to multiple attacks by
organized criminal groups and insufficient preventative and accountability measures have been
inadequately mobilized.7 Moreover, migrants are afraid to bring cases to the police. Chronic
impunity therefore persists. The Special Rapporteur urges prompt investigation of killings of
migrants in order to punish those responsible and provide compensation to victims or families of
victims. He also calls for strengthening of the protection framework, including ensuring the safe
operation of shelters.
Recommendations
B. Vulnerable Persons
111. Full, prompt, effective, impartial and diligent investigation of homicides perpetrated
against women, migrants, journalists and human rights defenders, children, inmates and
detainees and LGBT individuals should be ensured.
113. A safe corridor should be created for migrants in transit, including better protection
while in transit; a package of protection and accountability measures should be adopted to
prevent attacks in migrant shelters; cooperation should be strengthened between state
departments and community organizations that provide humanitarian assistance to
migrants; adequate redress should be provided to victims of violence committed in the
country; consideration should be given to following an approach whereby undocumented
migrants can exercise rights such as the right to report crimes to the authorities without
fearing arrest; and the dignified repatriation of corpses should be ensured in coordination
with the State of origin.
AR656
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 118 of 175
20
118. Conditions for all detainees should be improved in compliance with the Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the right to life of all inmates should be
ensured.
119. Police and other authorities should be trained on gender-identity and sexual orientation
awareness; protective and precautionary measures should be ensured; and societal
tolerance should be encouraged.
AR657
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 119 of 175
PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDA
Presidential Memorandum on Additional
Measures to Enhance Border Security and
Restore Integrity to Our Immigration System
Issued on: April 29, 2019
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
SUBJECT: Additional Measures to Enhance Border Security
and Restore Integrity to Our Immigration System
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States
of America, and to ensure the safety and territorial integrity of the United States as well as to
ensure that the Nation’s immigration laws are faithfully executed, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. As noted in Proclamations 9822 and 9842 of November 9, 2018, and
February 7, 2019, respectively, our immigration and asylum system is in crisis as a consequence
of the mass migration of aliens across our southern border. In Proclamation 9844 of February
15, 2019, I declared a national emergency to address the security and humanitarian crisis at that
border. That emergency continues to grow increasingly severe. In March, more than 100,000
inadmissible aliens were encountered seeking entry into the United States. Many aliens travel in
large caravans or other large organized groups, and many travel with children. The extensive
resources required to process and care for these individuals pulls U.S. Customs and Border
Protection personnel away from securing our Nation’s borders. Additionally, illicit
organizations benefit financially by smuggling illegal aliens into the United States and
encouraging abuse of our asylum procedures. This strategic exploitation of our Nation’s
humanitarian programs undermines our Nation’s security and sovereignty. The purpose of this
memorandum is to strengthen asylum procedures to safeguard our system against rampant abuse
of our asylum process.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to manage our humanitarian immigration
programs in a safe, orderly manner that provides access to relief or protection from removal from
the United States for aliens who qualify, and that promptly denies benefits to and facilitates the
removal of those who do not.
Sec. 3. Further Steps to Enhance the Integrity and Efficiency of the Existing Asylum
System. Within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, the Attorney General and the Secretary
of Homeland Security, as applicable, shall take all appropriate actions to:
AR658
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 120 of 175
(a) propose regulations to ensure that aliens who receive positive fear determinations pursuant to
section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)) or section
2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (8 U.S.C. 1231 note) are
placed in proceedings conducted under 8 CFR 208.2(c)(1) and 1208.2(c)(1) or, if not eligible for
asylum, are placed in proceedings conducted under 8 CFR 208.2(c)(2) and 1208.2(c)(2);
(b) propose regulations to ensure that, absent exceptional circumstances, all asylum applications
adjudicated in immigration court proceedings receive final administrative adjudication, not
including administrative appeal, within 180 days of filing, in accordance with section
208(d)(5)(A)(iii) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii));
(c) propose regulations setting a fee for an asylum application not to exceed the costs of
adjudicating the application, as authorized by section 208(d)(3) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(3))
and other applicable statutes, and setting a fee for an initial application for employment
authorization for the period an asylum claim is pending; and
(d) propose regulations under section 208(d)(2) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2)) and other
applicable statutes to bar aliens who have entered or attempted to enter the United States
unlawfully from receiving employment authorization before any applicable application for relief
or protection from removal has been granted, and to ensure immediate revocation of employment
authorization for aliens who are denied asylum or become subject to a final order of removal.
Sec. 4. Allocation of Immigration Officers. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
reprioritize the assignment of immigration officers and any other employees of the Department
as the Secretary deems necessary and appropriate to improve the integrity of adjudications of
credible and reasonable fear claims, to strengthen the enforcement of the immigration laws, and
to ensure compliance with the law by those aliens who have final orders of removal.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or
otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary,
administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and
subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
AR659
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 121 of 175
US rolls out 'Remain in Mexico' plan for asylum-seekers
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-24/united-states-remain-mexico-plan-begins-mexico-plans-shut-its-too-successful[7/18/2019 5:50:44 PM]
PRI
DONATE
Immigration
As United States’ ‘Remain in Mexico’ plan
begins, Mexico plans to shut its ‘too
successful’ humanitarian visa program
GlobalPos
January 24, 2019 · 9:45 PM EST
By Sarah Kinosian
Migrants, part of a caravan travelling to the US, make a human chain to pull people from the river between Guatemala to
Mexico in Ciudad Hidalgo and continuing to walk in Mexico, in October 2018. Many migrants headed for the border will
likely fnd themselves waiting in Mexico as part of the US's new "remain in Mexico" policy.
Credit: Leah Millis/Reuters
NAVIG
NAVIG
NAVIG
NAVIG
NAVIG
NAVIG
NAVIG
LISTEN
NEWS PROGRAMS
MUSIC & VARIETY PROGRAMS
PODCASTS
FEATURES
CATEGORIES
NEWSLETTERS
About Us
Contact
Donate Now
Close
Search...
We use cookies to undersand how you use our site and to improve your experience. To learn
more, review our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies and
Privacy Policy.
OK, I UNDERSTAND.
CLOSE
AR660
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 122 of 175
US rolls out 'Remain in Mexico' plan for asylum-seekers
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-24/united-states-remain-mexico-plan-begins-mexico-plans-shut-its-too-successful[7/18/2019 5:50:44 PM]
As the United States moves to implement a new plan to turn back
legal asylum-seekers at the US-Mexico border, tens of thousands of
Central American migrants could be sranded in Mexico while their
cases are decided, which often takes a year or more.
The policy, ofcially called the Migrant Protection Protocols and widely known since las
fall as “Remain in Mexico,” was frs announced by Homeland Security Secretary Kirsjen
Nielsen on Dec. 20. The plan goes into efect Friday, according to a Congressional aide.
It’s the mos drasic measure yet in President Donald Trump’s crackdown on
unauthorized immigration and the mos sweeping change to the US asylum sysem in
decades. Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s adminisration appeared
split on the policy after it was ofcially announced las month: the foreign
minisry reluctantly accepted it as the immigration authority publicly opposed it.
Many details are sill unclear. But the policy sends people back to Mexico who are
legally exercising their right to seek asylum after they've sepped on US soil — whether
crossing at ports of entry or between them — and orders them to return to the US for a
frs court date within 45 days, Vox reported. It is set to be piloted Friday at the San
Ysidro port of entry with an initial group of asylum-seekers being returned to Tijuana,
according to news reports. A legal challenge by immigrant rights' groups is virtually
guaranteed.
AR661
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 123 of 175
US rolls out 'Remain in Mexico' plan for asylum-seekers
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-24/united-states-remain-mexico-plan-begins-mexico-plans-shut-its-too-successful[7/18/2019 5:50:44 PM]
Like several other Mexican ofcials, Tonatiuh Guillén, head of Mexico’s immigration
authority, said he was not formally notifed of the policy.
“This could create a crisis, especially in Tijuana, which is
already overwhelmed. But it depends on the amount of
people we are really talking about. ... This is a US
initiative, and I guess we will have to try and implement it
in the mos civilized way possible and in accordance with
Mexican laws.”
- Tonatiuh Guillén, head of Mexico’s immigration authority
“This could create a crisis, especially in Tijuana, which is already overwhelmed,” Guillén
said. “But it depends on the amount of people we are really talking about. ... This is a US
initiative, and I guess we will have to try and implement it in the mos civilized way
possible and in accordance with Mexican laws.”
The policy also comes head-to-head with a recent efort by Mexico to grant renewable,
one-year humanitarian visas to many of the roughly 13,000 Central American migrants
who have accumulated at the country’s southern border.
Subscribe to the Global Nation Newsletter
Weekly newsletter featuring real-world sories of immigrants in the US.
The visas will allow them to live, work, access services, and travel freely around Mexico.
Initially meant to difuse potential chaos while the Mexican government fgured out how
AR662
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 124 of 175
Your name
Your email
Subscribe
US rolls out 'Remain in Mexico' plan for asylum-seekers
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-24/united-states-remain-mexico-plan-begins-mexico-plans-shut-its-too-successful[7/18/2019 5:50:44 PM]
to handle the newes wave of Central Americans, the program would be closed “shortly,”
Guillén said — a decision unrelated to the United States’ move but rather because the
program was “too successful” and could "overwhelm" Mexico's immigration sysem.
Insead, he said, the government was exploring potential employment options for
people, especially in southern Mexico. On Wednesday, Interior Miniser Olga Sánchez
Cordero extended work permits, previously granted only to Belizeans and Guatemalans,
to Salvadorans and Hondurans in seven southern sates to incentivize migrants to say.
But visas will sill be given to the more than 12,000 people who have already applied
since Jan. 17, Mexican immigration authorities said. Almos 80 percent of applicants are
from Honduras, where small groups have continued to depart in recent days as news of
the visas spread and seemed to incentivize some of them to migrate.
Mos of the migrants intend to head for the US, a fact Mexican ofcials have
acknowledged. The "remain" policy could force asylum-seekers to wait in dangerous,
cartel-controlled Mexican border towns, notorious for high homicide rates, for up to a
year. The US faces an immigration court backlog of more than 800,000 cases.
Jus days before Nielsen announced the policy las month, two Honduran teenagers
waiting to seek asylum in the United States were killed in Tijuana. Thousands of
migrants from a caravan las fall have waited there as the US has slowed processing at
the San Ysidro port of entry to jus a few dozen per day, a practice known as “metering.”
We are Public Media
Support us with a monthly recurring gift
Donate
Related: After two boys’ murders, migrants fear new ‘remain in Mexico’ policy
“The irony of this measure is that it is going to drive people
AR663
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 125 of 175
US rolls out 'Remain in Mexico' plan for asylum-seekers
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-24/united-states-remain-mexico-plan-begins-mexico-plans-shut-its-too-successful[7/18/2019 5:50:44 PM]
who are trying to apply for asylum at ports of entry and do
things the right way into the mountains and deserts. This is
another way to try and limit access to US asylum sysem
rather than try to fx it.”
- Andrew Selee, president of the Migration Policy Insitute
“The irony of this measure is that it is going to drive people who are trying to apply for
asylum at ports of entry and do things the right way into the mountains and deserts,”
said Andrew Selee, president of the Migration Policy Insitute in Washington, DC. “This
is another way to try and limit access to US asylum sysem rather than try to fx it.”
“A due process disaser”
Migrant advocates in the US have warned for weeks that a “Remain in Mexico” policy
would endanger asylum-seekers by forcing them to wait months or years as their cases
are decided, Human Rights Firs on Thursday called it “illegal, immoral and inhumane.”
The American Immigration Lawyers’ Association has called it “a due process disaser.”
“This plan will prevent mos, if not all, returned asylum seekers from receiving a fair day
in court,” AILA wrote in a policy brief las month. “Individuals forced to remain outside the
US will encounter subsantial barriers to accessing US attorneys — representation that
can make the diference between life and death.”
Related: This busy LA immigration court is now a ‘ghos town’ in wake of government
shutdown
Mexico, for its part, has said previously it would not accept the return of asylum-seekers
who may face a “credible” threat back home, though there have been few details on how
that might be determined. The policy will not be applied to vulnerable groups, such as
unaccompanied minors or pregnant women, according to news reports.
In the meantime, Mexican authorities worried about the infux of new arrivals, many of
AR664
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 126 of 175
US rolls out 'Remain in Mexico' plan for asylum-seekers
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-24/united-states-remain-mexico-plan-begins-mexico-plans-shut-its-too-successful[7/18/2019 5:50:44 PM]
whom say the visas drew them to migrate from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and
other Central American countries in the frs place.
“Especially after [Mexico] jus gave all those humanitarian visas out, this new policy
could create total disorder,” said Cesar Palencia, head of migrant services in Tijuana.
“What are we going to do with all the people they jus let in?”
During his campaign, López Obrador — who took ofce Dec. 1 and is known in Mexico
by his initials, AMLO — pledged to insitute a more humane migration srategy than that
of his predecessor, Enrique Peña Nieto, whose adminisration had come under fre for
its treatment of migrants, which included lengthy detention times. Under Peña Nieto,
Mexico began to deport more Central Americans than the United States did on a yearly
basis. The country also received subsantial US funding for border security and was
criticized as doing the bidding of its northern neighbor.
The humanitarian visa program had been part of AMLO’s immigration policy shift, as is
the rollout of his “Marshall Plan” for Central America, which is supposed to pump an
extra $20 billion over fve years to create jobs in southern Mexico and the Northern
Triangle countries of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. Poverty and
unemployment remain top drivers of migration from the region along with high levels of
corruption and gang and sate violence. AMLO’s adminisration has yet to specify its
logisics and sources of funding. But as seen with Mexico’s acceptance of “Remain in
Mexico,” he has signaled willingness to work with the United States to reduce the fow of
migrants.
What a "too successful" program looks like
Though Mexico’s humanitarian visa program is not new, authorities scaled it up
dramatically to handle the caravan and subsequent infux. In the frs three weeks of
2019, the number of visa applications has already surpassed the number granted las
year. Of the 118,285 Central Americans apprehended las year, 8,865, or 7.5 percent,
received humanitarian visas, according to the Mexican government, and only 0.4
percent, or 500 people, received one in 2014.
AR665
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 127 of 175
US rolls out 'Remain in Mexico' plan for asylum-seekers
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-24/united-states-remain-mexico-plan-begins-mexico-plans-shut-its-too-successful[7/18/2019 5:50:44 PM]
So far in 2019, jus 1,210 visas have been granted over more than 12,000 applications,
creating a bottleneck as throngs of migrants sleep in any space they can fnd on the
Guatemalan side of the border and the no man’s land on the bridge between the two
countries. The wait time to even regiser for a visa is more than 24 hours, advocates say.
Ofcials have had to sart limiting water and food handouts.
Migrants are fnding themselves suck at the Mexico-Guatemala border awaiting legal paperwork and in
Tijuana as the US lets only dozens per day into the country and will soon begin piloting the "remain in
Mexico" policy.
Credit: Alex Newman/The World
Jeisen Urbina is jus one of an esimated 14,000 Central Americans migrants who
arrived at Mexico’s southern border in the pas week. The 22-year-old Honduran taxi
driver was part of a caravan of about 2,000 that set of from the San Pedro Sula bus
sation in northern Honduras earlier this month.
It was his second time traveling with a caravan. In October, Urbina fung himself into the
Suchiate River that divides Guatemala and Mexico as riot police in front of him launched
tear gas at thousands of migrants who had pushed through the border fence behind him,
AR666
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 128 of 175
US rolls out 'Remain in Mexico' plan for asylum-seekers
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-24/united-states-remain-mexico-plan-begins-mexico-plans-shut-its-too-successful[7/18/2019 5:50:44 PM]
determined to reach the United States. Jus three months later, he sood calmly eating a
bag of peanuts in the same spot on the bridge.
“Well, this is diferent,” he said, eyeing the water below. He waited for his brother to
arrive before approaching Mexican immigration agents guiding Central Americans
through the process of getting a humanitarian visa. There were no riot police, border
agents, or closed gates — jus an ever-growing mass of people waiting in the hot sun to
get legal documents.
He had traveled more than 2,700 miles with the las caravan that arrived in Tijuana,
Mexico, in November. But after speaking with immigration attorneys, he decided to
return to Honduras to gather more documents that would srengthen his claim for US
asylum. Urbina said he was facing threats after gang members killed his 16-year-old
brother.
Now, with the US policy, Urbina’s chances to enter the US as a legal asylum-seeker
may be even narrower.
Tania Karas contributed to this report.
If you only have 30 seconds…
Sign up for our weekly global security newsletter CRITICAL STATE . Get your weekly fx
of foreign policy without all the suf you don't need – it’s top news and accessible
analysis for those who want an inside take without all the backroom bs.
By subscribing, I agree to receive emails from The World and Inksick Media.
AR667
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 129 of 175
Your name
Your email
Subscribe
US rolls out 'Remain in Mexico' plan for asylum-seekers
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-24/united-states-remain-mexico-plan-begins-mexico-plans-shut-its-too-successful[7/18/2019 5:50:44 PM]
Major funding provided by:
Categories: Confict & Jusice, Confict, Immigration, Politics, Global Politics and Global Nation.
Tagged: Tijuana and Mexico.
Lates Content
Brazil’s frs Afro Brazilian lawmaker says she’s a rebuke to the country’s hisory
NASA aims to build on moon as a way sation for Mars
Salt: China’s deadly food habit
DR Congo has been fghting Ebola for a year. What does the WHO declaration change?
Marine vet denied entry to US for scheduled citizenship interview
AR668
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 130 of 175
1
Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
For the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Compilation Report -
Universal Periodic Review:
COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS
I.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Commonwealth of the Bahamas (the Bahamas) acceded to the 1951 Convention relating to
the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (hereinafter referred to jointly as the 1951
Convention) in 1993. The Bahamas is neither a State party to the 1954 Convention on the Status
of Stateless Persons, nor to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
The Bahamian Government has no refugee legislation and no regulatory framework to
implement its obligations under the 1951 Convention. As such, the Government treats asylum-
seekers and refugees on an ad hoc basis, with no access to judicial remedies.
The Bahamas is the geographic gateway between the Caribbean and Florida. The island group is
a major transit point for Caribbean migrants, especially Haitians and Cubans, hoping to reach the
United States of America. Migrant populations include a complex mix of economic migrants,
asylum-seekers and refugees, victims of trafficking, and other individuals with protection needs
such as undocumented and unaccompanied minors and people with undetermined nationality.
During an average year, the Bahamas intercepts, detains, and returns hundreds of Cubans and
Haitians (although these numbers rise and fall depending on the conditions in these countries), as
well as others such as Sri Lankans, Chinese, Dominicans, Jamaicans, and other Caribbean and
African nationalities. During 2011, despite calls from UNHCR and OHCHR to stop all
involuntary returns of Haitian nationals on humanitarian grounds following Haiti’s 2010
earthquake, the Bahamas repatriated 2,392 Haitians. There are an estimated 30,000 or more
Haitians residing in an irregular manner in the Bahamas. As of January 2011, the Bahamas
hosted 28 recognized refugees and 9 asylum-seekers. However, the Government is in charge of
the refugee determination procedure and UNHCR does not receive consistent information
regarding new asylum claims or decisions on pending claims.
The Royal Bahamas Defense Force (RBDF) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) interdict
migrants at sea and arrest migrants onshore for unlawful status in the Bahamas. They are held at
the Carmichael Detention Centre, sometimes for extended periods. UNHCR is allowed limited
access to these detainees. UNHCR is concerned that information about these detainees is shared
AR669
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 131 of 175
2
with authorities in their country of origin. Systematic deportations from Carmichael are
conducted under bilateral Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with Cuba and Haiti.
II.
ACHIEVEMENTS AND BEST PRACTICES
The Bahamian Immigration Department’s Refugee Unit continues to collaborate with UNHCR
by requesting Advisory Opinions or country-of-origin research on a limited number of asylum
claims. UNHCR has submitted favourable Advisory Opinions for some cases, but they remain
pending with the Cabinet with no final determination on refugee status.
In December 2011, Bahamian Government officials and civil society members participated in a
joint UNHCR and IOM training on the protection of vulnerable migrants. The former Deputy
Prime Minister (and Minister of Immigration) opened the training session. The training was
productive and provided an opportunity for UNHCR, IOM, and government officials to interact
on issues pertaining to the protection of vulnerable migrants, including asylum-seekers, victims
of trafficking and persons at risk of statelessness.
Following concerns raised by UN Special Rapporteurs and civil society organizations, in 2009,
the Government conducted an investigation of conditions in the Carmichael Detention Centre;
however, the Government did not make the results of the report public. Detainees had reasonable
access to visitors and could participate in religious observances. Detainees could request to meet
with UNHCR representatives, and the Government allowed UNHCR representatives access to
some detainees.
The Government of the Bahamas made efforts to curb human trafficking. By the end of 2010, the
director of public prosecutions established a special cadre of prosecutors to prosecute trafficking
cases. These prosecutors investigated officials for misconduct, but the Government did not report
on the findings of the investigations or prosecutions of such officials. The Government also
provided venues for trainings on trafficking and provided space in medical facilities and long
term shelters to assist trafficking victims. Further, the Government announced that it is
developing a campaign in English and in Creole to raise awareness of human trafficking.
III.
KEY PROTECTION ISSUES, CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Issue 1: Protection of asylum-seekers and refugees
Similar to neighbouring Caribbean States, the Bahamas is located in a complex migratory
environment and susceptible to the arrival of irregular migrants. A particular challenge for the
Government is, on the one hand, honouring its international obligations under the 1951
Convention by identifying persons that might be in need of international protection in a mixed
migratory context, while, on the other hand, respecting its obligations embodied in migration
agreements, which require expedited processing and removal of migrants, particularly Cubans
and Haitians.
AR670
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 132 of 175
3
UNHCR is also concerned that the Bahamian Government routinely shares detainees’
information with authorities in their country of origin. This is particularly problematic for Cuban
nationals whose asylum claims are based on State persecution.
UNHCR is ready to provide technical support to the Bahamian Government to develop a national
refugee policy, including the drafting of national refugee legislation. UNHCR remains ready to
provide training and capacity-building services to government staff, civil society members and
academics, in order to strengthen its capacity to manage mixed migration flows. UNHCR is also
more than willing to provide technical assistance for a Caribbean cooperation plan to address
problems like rescue-at-sea situations that are of a regional nature.
Recommendations:
•
UNHCR encourages the Bahamas to adopt national refugee legislation, particularly in
light of the sample legislations that UNHCR provided the Government in January 2012.
•
UNHCR recommends that the Government of Bahamas accept UNHCR’s technical
support in drafting national refugee legislation, capacity building for Government
officials and assistance in the development of a national refugee status determination
procedure.
•
UNHCR encourages the Bahamas to facilitate full and open access to asylum procedures
for persons who have expressed a credible fear of returning to their country of origin and
to ensure non-refoulement of all persons in need of international protection.
•
UNHCR strongly recommends that the Bahamas fully respect the principle of
confidentiality with regard to information on asylum applications and refrain from
sharing migrants’ information with government authorities in their countries of origin1
until it has been appropriately determined that the respective persons are not in need of
international protection.
•
UNHCR encourages the Bahamas to find durable solutions for Cuban refugees who have
been residing in the Bahamas for several years and whose permanent residency
applications remain pending with the Cabinet.
•
UNHCR encourages the Bahamas to strengthen enforcement of the Trafficking in
Persons Prevention and Suppression Act by thoroughly and transparently investigating
suspected traffickers, developing standardized procedures to identify trafficking victims,
and allocating resources to assist trafficking victims. Any victims of trafficking who may
be in need of international protection should be given the opportunity to apply for asylum
in the Bahamas.
Issue 2: Detention of persons in need of international protection
All persons entering the Bahamas in violation of immigration law, including asylum-seekers, are
usually detained.2 There is no maximum length of detention specified in the law.3 Although the
1 “Memorandum of understanding between the Government of the Bahamas and the Government of Cuba” of 12
January 1996.
2 Bahamas Detention Profile, International Detention Project at:
http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/docs/Bahamas_Detention_Profile_2011.pdf
AR671
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 133 of 175
4
Carmichael Detention Centre is designed to be a temporary holding center pending deportation,
in reality, some migrants are held there for prolonged periods of time – weeks, even months. It is
UNHCR’s understanding, that the facility had the capacity to hold 500 detainees with tent space
for an additional 500. However, sections of the facility have been closed due to fire damage, and
the remaining portions of the facility are overcrowded with anywhere from 75 to 250 detainees.
Detention conditions at Carmichael are substandard and human rights organizations have
extensively documented serious concerns relating to the inhumane treatment and physical and
psychological abuse of detainees.4
The detention of asylum-seekers and refugees should only be used as a last resort, where
necessary and justified. Alternatives to detention should be sought and given preference, in
particular for certain categories of vulnerable persons. If detained, asylum-seekers should be
entitled to minimum procedural guarantees, including the possibility to contact and be contacted
by UNHCR.
UNHCR’s Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of
Asylum-Seekers highlight that “the position of asylum-seekers differs fundamentally from that
of ordinary immigrants in that they may not be in a position to comply with the legal formalities
for entry. This element, as well as the fact that asylum-seekers have often had traumatic
experiences, should be taken into account in determining any restrictions on freedom of
movement based on illegal entry or presence.”5
Recommendations:
•
The Government should ensure that refugees and asylum-seekers are not penalized for
illegal entry and stay in the country, that the detention of asylum-seekers is only used as a
last resort, and where necessary, for as short a period as possible and that judicial
safeguards are in place to prevent arbitrary and/or indefinite detention.
•
UNHCR respectfully repeats its recommendation that the Government not only
contemplate improving detention conditions but, more importantly, also consider
alternatives to detention, especially for asylum-seekers, refugees, stateless persons and
other vulnerable individuals.
Issue 3: Preventing and Reducing Statelessness
Stateless persons who satisfy the refugee definition contained in article 1A(2) of the 1951
Convention are afforded the necessary international protection associated with that status.
However, the international refugee protection regime does not specifically address the
entitlement to rights of non-refugee stateless persons in need of international protection.
3 The Immigration Department recently released two asylum seekers from Detention upon UNHCR’s
recommendation that they be recognized as refugees. They are allowed to work in the Bahamas.
4 Bahamas Detention Profile, International Detention Project at:
http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/docs/Bahamas_Detention_Profile_2011.pdf
5 UN High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR's Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards relating
to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers, 26 February 1999, Guideline 3, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3c2b3f844.html.
AR672
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 134 of 175
5
Accession to the Statelessness Conventions would establish a framework to prevent and reduce
statelessness, in order to avoid the detrimental effects that this can have on individuals and
society, and to ensure minimum standards of treatment of stateless persons, providing such
persons with stability and security, and ensuring that certain basic rights and needs are met.
The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons ensures minimum standards of
treatment of stateless persons in respect to a number of economic, social and cultural rights.
These include, but are not limited to, the right to education, employment, housing, and public
relief. Importantly, the Convention also guarantees stateless persons a right to identity and travel
documents and to administrative assistance.
Furthermore, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness establishes an international
framework to ensure the right of every person to a nationality by establishing safeguards to
prevent statelessness at birth and later in life. This treaty is therefore complementary to standards
contained in other human rights treaties. An increase in the number of State parties is essential to
strengthening international efforts to prevent and reduce statelessness and ensuring full
enjoyment of a number of these rights.
The Bahamian Constitution establishes that every person born in the Bahamas has Bahamian
nationality if either or both parents are citizens of the Bahamas. The Constitution however, lacks
a safeguard to prevent statelessness amongst children who are born in the Bahamas to parents
who are stateless or unknown or to parents who are foreigners and unable to confer their
nationality on their children. Persons born to foreign parents in the Bahamas may not acquire
Bahamian nationality before turning eighteen. Administrative instructions and wide use of
discretion sometimes hamper and delay attainment of nationality. In addition, although the
Bahamas has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which inter alia, confirms the
right of every child to a nationality (Article 7), the Constitution fails to make provision for the
grant of Bahamian nationality to foundlings found on the territory of the Bahamas, who therefore
risk being left stateless.
Further, although the Bahamas has acceded to the Convention on the Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women which provides, inter alia, for gender equality in nationality
matters (Article 9), under the Bahamian Constitution children born abroad to Bahamian mothers
cannot acquire Bahamian nationality at birth; only children born of Bahamian fathers can do so.6
In order to acquire Bahamian nationality, children born in wedlock to Bahamian mothers while
living outside of the Bahamas must submit a registration application after the age of 18 but
before the age of 21. These children must renounce citizenship to any other country prior to
registration, so they cannot have dual citizenship. Such discrimination against women in
nationality legislation may lead to statelessness of children, where the child is unable to acquire
the father’s nationality because he is stateless, unknown or cannot confer his nationality under
the laws of his State of nationality. Further, pursuant to the Constitution, only Bahamian men are
have the right to confer their citizenship on their foreign spouses, whereas Bahamian women do
not have an equivalent right. Discrimination against women in this respect impedes the reduction
6 Background Note on Gender Equality, Nationality Laws and Statelessness, UNHCR, March 8, 2012 at
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendocPDFViewer.html?docid=4f5886306&query=barbados
AR673
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 135 of 175
6
of statelessness where women are unable to confer their nationality on their stateless spouses and
also creates further risks of statelessness amongst children.
To UNHCR’s knowledge, the Bahamas have no specific provisions in its national legislation to
either avoid situations of statelessness or to extend protection to stateless individuals who are
lawfully present. The threat of statelessness primarily affects Bahamian-born Haitians because
they cannot always gather or obtain official documents confirming their Haitian nationality. As a
result, these individuals face constant threats of detention or deportation and have difficulty
accessing education and healthcare, opening bank accounts, and acquiring legal employment.7
Recommendations:
•
UNHCR recommends that the Government of the Bahamas accede to the 1954
Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and to the 1961 Convention on
the Reduction of Statelessness.
•
Introduce a statelessness determination procedure to identify stateless persons within
the Bahamas and to afford them protection.
•
UNHCR recommends amendment to the provisions of the Constitution to introduce a
safeguard against statelessness in the case of foundlings as well as children born in
the territory of the Bahamas who would otherwise be stateless.
•
UNHCR recommends amendment of discriminatory provisions of the Constitution, in
order to allow women to pass their nationality to their children or to their spouses of
foreign nationality on an equal basis with men.
Human Rights Liaison Unit
Division of International Protection
UNHCR
June 2012
7 “Immigration policy set for changes,” Tribune, June 10, 2011, available at:
http://www.tribune242.com/06102011_at-immigration_news_pg1.
AR674
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 136 of 175
the border fence after crossing into El Paso, Texas, from Ciudad
A Guatemalan woman and her three daughters at
Mexico.
Juarez,
| David Peinado/NurPhoto via Getty Images
President Trump’s constant temper tantrums about the US-Mexico border have
become the background noise of his administration. Even as he reaches for
more and more drastic threats to try to “stop” the flow of unauthorized migrants
into the US — like the threat of a 5 percent tariff on all goods coming into the US
from Mexico — it seems that the public (including fellow Republican politicians)
have an ever harder time taking him seriously.
But as Trump has raged, something genuinely unprecedented has started
happening at the border.
The border is in crisis. Here’s
how it got this bad.
There really is something unprecedented — and deadly — happening at
the US-Mexico border right now. But the threat is to migrants
themselves.
By Dara Lind
dara@vox.com
Updated Jun 5, 2019, 1:47pm EDT
Page 1 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR675
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 137 of 175
The past several months have seen a huge spike in unauthorized migration,
especially of families, into the US.
The government’s capacity to handle an influx of large groups of children and
families was already under serious strain at the end of 2018. By March,
politicians of both parties were recognizing it as a humanitarian crisis. And the
numbers of people coming just keep rising — with 132,887 migrants
apprehended by Border Patrol after crossing the US-Mexico border (committing
the misdemeanor of illegal entry) in May 2019.
This isn’t a manufactured crisis, or a politically engineered one, as some
Democrats and progressives have argued. If it were, it would be easier to solve.
What’s happening at the border is the result of a regional crisis in which — if
current rates continue — close to 1 percent of the entire population of
Guatemala and Honduras will attempt to immigrate to the US this year. The
Mexican government, meanwhile, is vacillating between humanitarian rhetoric
and militarized crackdowns, US border officials are openly begging for help, and
Trump himself is throwing the mother of all temper tantrums.
Trump’s threats will likely cause massive collateral damage throughout North
America and aren’t even likely to stop people from arriving at the US-Mexico
border, his stated goal. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem here, or
even a crisis. It just means it’s not one that’s going to be solved anytime soon.
1) Is there an unprecedented surge of unauthorized
migration into the US?
Yes — or at least, probably. But of a specific kind.
Three things are simultaneously true:
• The total number of people coming into the US without papers is still lower than it was
for most of the 20th century, and substantially lower than its turn-of-the-century peak.
• The total number of people coming into the US without papers is now higher than it’s
been since early 2007, before the Great Recession.
Page 2 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR676
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 138 of 175
• The number of people coming into the US without papers who can’t simply be
detained and deported — children, families, and asylum seekers — is almost certainly
unprecedented.
(https://
url=http
3A%
2F%
2Fwww
2F2019
2F4%
2F11%
2F1829
2Fbord
immigra
illegal-
asylum
central-
america
mexico
trump%
3Futm_
3Dsocia
26utm_
3Dtwitte
3A%
20Bord
20Patro
20appr
2C%
20Octo
202011
present
3A%
(https://
u=https
3A%
2F%
2Fwww
2F2019
2F4%
2F11%
2F1829
2Fbord
immigra
illegal-
asylum
central-
america
i
(http://w
url=http
3A%
2F%
2Fwww
2F2019
2F4%
2F11%
2F1829
2Fbord
immigra
illegal-
asylum
central-
america
i
Page 3 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR677
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 139 of 175
By this point, it’s not just that there are more children and families coming than
have in recent years. There is substantial evidence that the raw number of
children and families entering the US is higher than it’s ever been.
We don’t have apples-to-apples data. Right now, DHS separately counts
“unaccompanied alien children” who come without their parents, and migrants
who come in “family units” of one or more parents with one or more children.
Before 2011, though, it combined juveniles who came with parents and juveniles
who came without them — and simply counted parents traveling with their
children as adults.
We do know, however, that very few of all migrants apprehended were juveniles
in the early 2000s compared to today — so even during peak unauthorized
migration, rarely more than 100,000 juveniles a year were crossing. And the
majority of those were coming without their parents. So if the statistics had been
kept in the same way in the early 2000s that they are now, they almost certainly
wouldn’t have shown more than 150,000 unaccompanied children and family
units coming into the US even during peak years.
So far in fiscal year 2019, with four months to go, nearly 390,000 children and
parents have been apprehended. Nearly 96,000 unaccompanied children and
family members were apprehended in the month of May alone.
2) Why can’t all border crossers simply be deported?
The US border enforcement system is built to apprehend people who are trying
to sneak into the US, and return them to their home country as quickly as
possible.
For most of US history, apprehended migrants were just informally returned to
Mexico. In the mid-2000s, the US started formally deporting apprehended
migrants instead — using “expedited removal,” which allowed people who got
caught entering the US to get deported without going before an immigration
judge. Typically, a migrant would be apprehended by Border Patrol officials,
Page 4 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR678
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 140 of 175
transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody within 72
hours, and deported once a deportation order could be signed.
But there are extra legal protections built into US law and policy for asylum
seekers — who can’t simply be deported — and for vulnerable groups, including
children and families, who can’t simply be detained.
Asylum seekers — whether they have presented themselves at a port of entry to
ask for asylum (breaking no US law) or crossed into the US between ports of
entry (committing the misdemeanor of illegal entry) and evoked their right to
asylum after being apprehended by a Border Patrol officer — can’t be deported
until they’ve been screened by an asylum officer to see if they have a “credible
fear” of persecution. Unaccompanied children from non-Mexican countries have
to be transferred to the care of the Department of Health and Human Services
within 72 hours and are guaranteed immigration court hearings. Families, under
a 2015 court ruling, can’t be detained indefinitely; generally, the government has
to release them after about 20 days.
In all three cases, the “detain, then deport” system doesn’t work. The system is
overloaded with people it wasn’t designed to handle.
3) Why are people coming to the United States to begin
with?
The simplest answer is probably the truest: because things are bad enough for
them in their home countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador that
they’ve decided to risk the journey to the US, and whatever treatment awaits
them here, for a chance in America.
Page 5 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR679
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 141 of 175
board a bus that will take them out of Honduras in April 2019. Unless
A group of Hondurans sleep as they wait to
States, as previous
many will likely head to the United
—
which is plausible
—
Mexican authorities
stopped by
of Honduran migrants have.
”
caravans
“
US law slices migrants into categories. People seeking to migrate for economic
reasons or to reunite with family might have a way to migrate to the US legally,
but they’re not allowed legal status if they arrive without papers. People fleeing
persecution have the right once on US soil to apply for asylum, whether they
have papers or not.
The Trump administration claims that very few of the people coming to the US
now are genuine asylum seekers, pointing to the fairly low rate of success of
asylum claims in immigration court (10 to 15 percent for Northern Triangle
countries) as evidence that these aren’t “real” asylees, or even to claim that
most of them are outright frauds.
In practice, though, it’s often hard to determine a single reason that a given
migrant is leaving — much less a group of hundreds of them, or a monthly flow
of tens of thousands. The same people facing dire poverty can also be
persecuted by their governments for their political views; someone might decide
to leave because their crops are failing, but decide when to leave based on a
threat to their lives.
The most pressing problem in Honduras and El Salvador continues to be
violence, specifically gang violence. (El Salvador has reduced its homicide rate
substantially, and migration to the US has declined sharply since last summer.)
Victimization by gangs isn’t as solid a basis for an asylum claim as victimization
| Orlando Sierra/AFP/Getty Images
Page 6 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR680
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 142 of 175
by the government, and the Trump administration is trying to make it even
harder to claim asylum due to gang violence.
Guatemala, which has seen the biggest increase in migration to the US in the
current surge, is generally more beset by crushing poverty than gang violence.
(Domestic violence is endemic in all three countries.) Poverty, no matter how
dire, isn’t grounds to seek asylum. But it’s hard to disentangle the poverty of the
Guatemalan highlands from concerns about the government’s treatment of
indigenous peoples, or the poor situation of the region’s farmers from
oppression of community and environmental activists challenging the
government’s land use policies.
Many of these migrants are choosing to come to the US rather than staying in
Mexico because the US offers them a better opportunity to make money and
support their families, in addition to being substantially safer, and US law allows
asylum claims from migrants who pass through Mexico. (Asylum seekers who
try to enter the US from Canada have to stay in Canada.) Many asylum seekers
also have relatives in the US already. That doesn’t mean they don’t also have
valid asylum claims.
Further complicating all of this, migrants themselves don’t necessarily know
what asylum is or why they might or might not qualify for it. Some migrants I’ve
spoken to believed you could get asylum simply by having a relative in the US
— or that if you had no family in the US, you couldn’t get asylum. (Neither is the
case.) People traveling in the “caravan” last fall often told reporters they were
coming to the US to work.
To the US government (and immigration hawks), both of these are indicators
that these aren’t “real” asylum seekers. To advocates and immigration lawyers,
they’re evidence that people move between countries for complex reasons, and
that some who might qualify for asylum might not even know it without help from
a lawyer.
4) Why are more people coming now?
Page 7 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR681
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 143 of 175
Trump’s first few months in office set records for how few people were caught
trying to enter the US from Mexico, something he continued to brag about even
as apprehension levels began to rise again in summer and fall 2017. (The claim
made by Trump critics that unauthorized migration is at “historic lows” is based
on the fact that yearly apprehension rates are still low in comparison to the pre-
recession era, but apprehensions have been rising pretty much every month
since April 2017.) And building on a trend that had become noticeable since the
border crisis of summer 2014, the people who were coming were
unaccompanied children and, increasingly, families.
By September 2018, DHS officials were raising alarms about the number of
children and families coming into the US, and warning that the system was
overwhelmed. Apprehensions continued to climb through the fall. Then in
February, they skyrocketed.
contributing to the
—
become increasingly common at the US/Mexico border
Large groups, like this group of 100, have
spike in apprehensions of migrants in the past few months.
rapid
| David Peinado/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Page 8 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR682
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 144 of 175
The rapid increase from the beginning of 2019 to now still isn’t fully understood.
It appears to stem from a shift in smuggling tactics and capacity. (While human
smuggling is illegal, it’s used by asylum seekers who feel they have no other
choice as well as people migrating for economic reasons.)
The rise of “express route” buses that can take hundreds of migrants at a time
through Mexico in five or six days appears to be a factor. Many migrants who
might have felt the chance of arriving in the US wasn’t worth the risks of a
grueling and dangerous journey on foot through Mexico may be changing their
calculus now that the risk is lower. Similarly, anecdotal reports indicate that
smugglers are offering discounts for migrants who bring their children.
The other factor is Mexico. The government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador
(who took office in December) has tried to marry rhetoric about a new
humanitarian approach to migration with a desire to stay on the Trump
administration’s good side. In December, Mexico made it much easier for
Central American migrants seeking to travel to the US to get temporary
“humanitarian visas” that allowed them 90 days of legal status in Mexico.
The Mexican government wasn’t prepared for how many Central Americans
would seek the visas, and shut down the program rapidly. But American officials
suspect the humanitarian visas made it much easier for Central Americans
already in Mexico to come to the US, and may have influenced more to come.
5) Is the US system stretched to the “breaking point”?
It is apparent that the needs of migrants in custody have overwhelmed DHS
capacity.
The department is redirecting resources from other things to the border, much
like it would in a natural disaster. Customs and Border Protection has detailed a
few hundred port officers to help Border Patrol agents care for families and
children — slowing down the processing of people and vehicles at ports of entry
accordingly, and causing hours-long lines across some international bridges.
The department has called for volunteers from other agencies to help.
Page 9 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR683
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 145 of 175
But they’re still swamped. On a call in June, one Customs and Border Protection
official said, “when we have 4,000 people in custody, we consider that high.
When we have 6,000, we consider it a crisis. Right now, we have 19,000 people
in custody. It’s just off the charts.”
In May, DHS’s inspector general office found that as many as 900 people
were being held in a Border Patrol facility built for 125 people. One cell, with a
listed maximum capacity of 12 people, held 76.
In March, CBP agents in El Paso kept some families in a temporary holding pen
under a bridge, with some families claiming they were kept there for several
days. The holding pen was shut down at the end of March, after pictures of it
attracted widespread shock and outrage, but CBP agents encouraged reporters
to get pictures of it — pointing to it as an example of what they were forced to
do because they had no other choice.
It’s difficult to determine whether that’s true, because it’s really about
counterfactuals — what else the Trump administration could have done in the
past to prepare for this, or what other things it could be doing now. (A world in
which Trump spent as much time and money on processing centers for migrant
families as he spent on a wall would look very different.)
CBP has warned for months that it isn’t able to house and process the current
population coming into the US, and that it has nowhere to put people between
when they turn themselves in to Border Patrol agents and when they are
released.
The deaths of several children in Border Patrol custody have highlighted the
lack of appropriate care in Border Patrol facilities. Congress included funds in its
February appropriations bill to help Border Patrol provide food and shelter for
migrant families in El Paso, but there are far more families and children coming
now than the February bill anticipated.
Releasing asylum seekers from custody isn’t as easy as letting them out. Unlike
immigrants who are arrested by ICE while living in the United States, many
Page 10 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR684
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 146 of 175
newly arrived asylum seekers aren’t familiar with the US, often speak neither
English nor Spanish, and may not have appropriate clothing or funds for bus
fare. They are usually released with instructions to check in with an ICE agent at
a field office that could be states away. There are nonprofit organizations that
can help acclimate families and get them to their destination, but that too
requires advance notification and effort. When the government simply dumps
people outside bus stations, they end up lost, cold, and confused.
6) Have the Trump administration’s actions contributed to
the crisis?
Trump and DHS officials say that “legitimate” asylum seekers ought to have no
reason to enter illegally, and even attempted to ban people who crossed
between ports of entry from seeking asylum. (The ban was quickly struck down
in court). But since last summer, the administration has restricted asylum
seekers trying to present themselves at ports of entry, allowing in only a fraction
each day of the people who are waiting — a policy called “metering” or “queue
management.”
Page 11 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR685
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 147 of 175
one of the shelters in Tijuana for migrants trying to cross into the United
This Honduran woman and her children wait in
legally to claim asylum at the port of entry
States. Hundreds of migrants are waiting to be allowed to present themselves
months.
policy, the wait has sometimes taken
”
metering
“
s
’
administration
at San Ysidro. Under the Trump
Metering varies from port to port (see this article to read about the policy in
depth), but at the most popular ports of entry, it’s forced migrants to wait weeks
or months before they can step onto US soil and exercise their right to claim
asylum. Faced with such a wait — sometimes in dangerous Mexican border
towns — it’s logical that a migrant might choose to cross illegally to present their
asylum claim instead.
As the number of people caught coming into the US between ports of entry
illegally has spiked, the number of “inadmissible” migrants, who come to a port
of entry and are found not to have valid legal status, has stayed flat. Many
Trump critics point to metering as the root of the discrepancy — and accuse
Trump of manufacturing a crisis by forcing people to cross illegally, then
panicking when they do.
It’s clear that at least some migrants are crossing illegally only because they
can’t cross legally, but it’s extremely likely that the number of illegal entries
would be climbing even without the metering policy.
There have always been many fewer asylum seekers coming to ports of entry
than crossing between them. That’s especially true in the Rio Grande Valley,
which has been the epicenter of child and family migration for the past decade.
Where migrants cross into the US isn’t usually their choice to make; it’s the
choice of the smuggler facilitating their arrival. The emergence of new drop-off
points for large groups of migrants like Antelope Wells, New Mexico, and
Lukeville, Arizona, isn’t the result of democratic decision-making by migrants —
those locations are the endpoints of smuggling routes. And they’re between, not
at, ports of entry.
| Mario
Tama/Getty Images
Page 12 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR686
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 148 of 175
7) Is Trump right that Mexico and the Northern Triangle
countries aren’t doing anything to stop migrants from
reaching the US?
No.
s broader
’
part of the Mexican government
—
border fence in Juarez
Mexican soldiers help string wire across the
migrants.
with the Trump administration in deterring and interdicting
cooperation
Trump appears to be mad that Northern Triangle countries aren’t doing more to
stop their citizens from leaving, which is not a thing that governments are
supposed to do under general human rights principles, and also, more to the
point, not a thing that governments can do without a massive investment of
time, personnel, and infrastructure. Trump is asking governments that can’t
even guarantee the safety and well-being of their citizens to monitor those
citizens’ whereabouts perfectly.
| David Peinado/NurPhoto via Getty
Images
Page 13 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR687
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 149 of 175
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have cooperated with the US on
security measures; a new “compact” allowing joint policing operations between
the four countries was signed by then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen
Nielsen and her Central American counterparts in April — shortly before Nielsen
was fired.
The Mexican situation is more complicated. The Mexican government’s brief
expansion of humanitarian visas in December really did make it easier for
Central Americans to enter and move through Mexico to the US, so it would
make sense for the Trump administration to be mad at them over that.
But the Mexican government reversed its visa policy as soon as it became clear
how many migrants were coming in. And since then, it’s been extremely
cooperative — even deferential — with the US.
Metering only works because of Mexican officials stopping asylum seekers
before they can set foot on US soil. Under the “Migrant Protection Protocols,”
Mexican officials have allowed the US to force nearly 9,000 Central Americans
to return to Mexico and wait for their asylum cases to be resolved.
In January, as a large caravan of migrants prepared to cross into a US port in
Texas, a group of Mexican law enforcement officials surrounded them and
detained them at an empty factory, letting out only a few a day to seek asylum;
when unrest broke out at the factory, the asylum seekers were dispersed on
buses to towns farther from the border.
On a couple of occasions, Mexican officials have even deployed the military to
the isthmus connecting Mexico and Guatemala to “contain” migrants.
Trump administration officials not named Donald Trump generally acknowledge
Mexico’s cooperation, even if they say they’d like Mexico to do more. Trump
himself, however, appears to be unshakable in the belief he’s held since 2015:
that the government of Mexico is at fault for anyone arriving in the US without
papers.
Page 14 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR688
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 150 of 175
8) Will cutting off aid to the Northern Triangle countries
help?
Almost certainly not.
It’s not exactly clear what the parameters of the State Department’s Saturday
announcement that it was cutting off aid actually are — in particular, there
seems to be confusion about whether it applies to contracts that have already
been signed. But because the State Department (reportedly under pressure
from the Office of Management and Budget, under Trump’s acting Chief of Staff
Mick Mulvaney) had been slow-walking aid from 2018, not to mention 2019,
that’s still hundreds of millions of dollars potentially lost.
Aid is traditionally seen as an important way to curb emigration, under the logic
that people will be less likely to leave their countries if they’re safer and more
able to make a living there. (In practice, improving someone’s financial situation
can in the short term make them more likely to migrate, but security aid that
reduces violence in a country has been shown to decrease emigration.)
Even Trump administration officials have endorsed this point of view — from
former Homeland security secretary and Chief of Staff John Kelly, who bragged
that the Trump administration was doing more than previous administrations to
help the region, to CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan — now acting
secretary of DHS — who responded to a previous Trump threat to cut off aid by
telling CBS that the US needed to invest in Central America.
Page 15 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR689
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 151 of 175
and from there to
—
bus that will take them out of Honduras to Guatemala
A father waits with his daughter to board a
Hondurans and Guatemalans
and (possibly) the United States. According to some estimates, the number of
Mexico
populations.
’
reach almost 1 percent of those countries
apprehended at the US/Mexico border this year will
If the aid cutoff includes security aid, that would likely be immediately
counterproductive, because it would make it much harder for the US to conduct
anti-smuggling and anti-trafficking operations in the region — and much harder
for the governments of the Northern Triangle countries to do that themselves.
The aid cutoff also threatens to damage the US-Mexico relationship. The López
Obrador government has maintained a rhetorical commitment to a “Marshall
Plan”-style investment in Central America — and the US’s rhetorical agreement
that such development was necessary helped justify Mexico’s cooperation on
immigration crackdowns. With the aid cutoff, the Trump administration is
sending the message that it doesn’t actually agree with Mexico’s vision for the
region — just as it ramps up pressure on Mexico to do more to target Central
American migrants as a way to help Trump.
9) What are other solutions?
The answer to this question depends on what you see as the problem.
Immigration hawks see it as too many people coming into the US without papers
whose asylum claims won’t ultimately prevail; immigration doves see the
problem as the conditions in Central America that migrants are fleeing, and the
conditions in which they’re held while in the US.
There are plenty of ideas in the former category. The problem is that the ideas
are not getting the support they would need to actually happen.
| Orlando
Sierra/AFP/Getty Images
Page 16 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR690
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 152 of 175
The US would like to get Mexico to sign a “safe third country” agreement that
would allow the US to deny asylum to Central Americans, but Mexico has no
interest in that. The Trump administration wants to get Congress to deport
Central American children without hearings and override the court settlement
that prevents long-term family detention, but House Democrats aren’t biting. The
White House wants to change the intentionally generous “credible fear”
standard in asylum screening interviews so that fewer people are allowed to
stay and apply for asylum (increasing the risk that legitimate asylum claimants
will get returned to danger), but the legal concerns about that are so intense that
it might have to purge generally like-minded officials from the Department of
Homeland Security to carry out the plan.
In the latter category, it’s easy to point to things that the administration should
stop doing, like keeping families outdoors in cage-like holding pens. A
humanitarian agenda could also include more case management outside of
detention, to increase the odds that families show up to hearings, or even
broader access to counsel in immigration proceedings (which isn’t guaranteed
under current law).
But it’s not clear how much money the administration would need to invest in
order to take proper care of the families coming in now, or how quickly that
could be done — and it’s not clear how many more families are going to come in
the coming months.
The old consensus that the US needed to help address the “root causes” of
migration, by investing in the Northern Triangle countries and making it more
appealing for people to stay, was never supposed to be an immediate solution
to anything. Of course, Trump’s view of migration makes it less likely that
anyone will be able to start work on long-term solutions that might bear fruit
down the road. It is almost certainly, in the meantime, going to get worse before
it gets better.
Page 17 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR691
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 153 of 175
View all stories in Explainers
The House just passed a
$15 minimum wage. It
would be the first
increase in a decade.
Trump’s racist tirades
against “the Squad,”
explained
The controversy over whether the media should call
Trump’s racist tweets “racist,” explained
EXPLAINERS
EXPLAINERS
EXPLAINERS
Page 18 of 18
Border: The migration crisis and the Trump administration’s response, explained - Vox
7/18/2019
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-ame...
AR692
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 154 of 175
UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
Date
USCIS
Fear
Referrals
Referral:
Single
Adult
Referral:
Family
Unit
Fear
Referral:
Fear
Found
Fear
Referral:
Fear Not
Found
Aliens
Returned to
Mexico
(OFO)
Aliens
Returned to
Mexico
(USBP)
Aliens
Returned to
Mexico
(Total)
6/5/19
0
0
0
4
1
6
238
244
Jan-19
2
2
0
2
11
14
0
14
Feb-19
34
19
5
14
20
143
0
143
Mar-19
66
16
17
11
55
200
0
200
Apr-19
194
49
62
37
137
268
2316
2584
May-19
265
86
68
19
236
411
4962
5373
Jun-19
23
3
9
6
17
29
885
914
TOTAL
584
175
161
89
465
1065
8163
9228
San Diego
Sector
Date
USCIS
Fear
Referrals
Referral:
Single
Adult
Referral:
Family
Unit
Fear
Referral:
Fear
Found
Fear
Referral:
Fear Not
Found
Aliens
Returned to
Mexico
(OFO)
Aliens
Returned to
Mexico
(USBP)
Aliens
Returned to
Mexico
(Total)
5/29/19
11
0
4
0
11
8
39
47
5/30/19
13
0
5
0
13
3
46
49
5/31/19
2
0
1
0
0
6
50
56
6/1/19
3
1
1
0
3
0
60
60
6/2/19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6/3/19
6
0
3
2
2
5
41
46
6/4/19
9
1
3
0
10
0
44
44
6/5/19
0
0
0
0
1
0
44
44
Jan-19
2
2
0
2
0
14
0
14
Feb-19
34
19
5
14
20
143
0
143
Mar-19
63
15
16
11
52
192
0
192
Apr-19
104
36
30
13
75
107
707
814
May-19
131
20
41
16
105
139
1520
1659
Jun-19
18
2
7
2
16
5
189
194
TOTAL
352
94
99
58
268
600
2416
3016
Field Notes:
1) These data points are unofficial and subject to change due to the ongoing nature of processing aliens.
SAN YSIDRO (began 28 Jan 2019)
SOUTHWEST BORDER TOTALS
2) INMI does not allow MPP returns on Sundays. Any individuals processed for MPP Sunday will be returned on Monday and reflect on Monday's
Report.
MPP DATA POINTS BY FIELD OFFICE
5-Jun-2019
DAILY SITUATIONAL REPORT
MIGRANT PROTECTION PROTOCOLS
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING PAPERS
UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
AR693
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 155 of 175
UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
El Centro
Sector
Date
USCIS
Fear
Referrals
Referral:
Single
Adult
Referral:
Family
Unit
Fear
Referral:
Fear
Found
Fear
Referral:
Fear Not
Found
Aliens
Returned to
Mexico
(OFO)
Aliens
Returned to
Mexico
(USBP)
Aliens
Returned to
Mexico
(Total)
5/29/19
0
0
0
0
0
1
97
98
5/30/19
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
54
5/31/19
0
0
0
0
0
0
76
76
6/1/19
0
0
0
0
0
0
51
51
6/2/19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6/3/19
0
0
0
0
0
0
101
101
6/4/19
0
0
0
0
0
5
95
100
6/5/19
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
Mar-19
3
1
1
0
3
7
0
7
Apr-19
9
5
2
2
6
47
527
574
May-19
4
0
2
0
4
12
1291
1303
Jun-19
0
0
0
0
0
5
347
352
TOTAL
16
6
5
2
13
71
2165
2236
El Paso
Sector
Date
USCIS
Fear
Referrals
Referral:
Single
Adult
Referral:
Family
Unit
Fear
Referral:
Fear
Found
Fear
Referral:
Fear Not
Found
Aliens
Returned to
Mexico
(OFO)
Aliens
Returned to
Mexico
(USBP)
Aliens
Returned to
Mexico
(Total)
5/29/19
0
0
0
0
0
6
94
100
5/30/19
17
6
3
1
15
1
85
86
5/31/19
10
4
3
0
11
2
84
86
6/1/19
0
0
0
0
0
0
73
73
6/2/19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6/3/19
0
0
0
0
0
13
82
95
6/4/19
5
1
2
0
1
0
100
100
6/5/19
0
0
0
4
0
6
94
100
Mar-19
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Apr-19
81
8
30
22
56
114
1082
1196
May-19
130
66
25
3
127
260
2151
2411
Jun-19
5
1
2
4
1
19
349
368
TOTAL
216
75
57
29
184
394
3582
3976
EL PASO (began 19 Mar 2019)
CALEXICO (began 13 Mar 2019)
UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
AR694
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 156 of 175
UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
NOTE: These definitions are summaries provided for internal DHS reporting purposes only and do not constitute policy or
operational direction or guidance.
Single Adult: A person who does not meet the definition of a Family Unit or Unaccompanied Alien Child.
Family Unit: An alien child or children under the age of 18 accompanied by his/her/their alien parent(s) or legal guardian(s).
Fear Referrals: Aliens who are potentially amenable to MPP but who affirmatively state a fear of return to Mexico, whether before or
after they are processed for MPP or other disposition, will be referred to USCIS for a screening with an asylum officer following the
affirmative statement of fear of return to Mexico.
Fear Found: A determination that the alien is more likely than not to be persecuted or tortured in Mexico. The alien is not eligible for
MPP processing. CBP retains all existing discretion to processes (or re-process) the alien for any other available disposition, including ER,
NTA, or reinstatement. (Reinstatement is only applicable for aliens processed by USBP. OFO includes “waivers” or “parole” here).
Fear Not Found: A determination that the alien is not more likely than not to be persecuted or tortured in Mexico. The alien may
continue to be subject to MPP.
Return to Mexico: Aliens who entered the US, either at a Port of Entry or apprehended between Ports of Entry, who were processed
under MPP and returned to Mexico.
OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS
UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
AR695
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 157 of 175
Migrants anxious after Mexican authorities raid caravan | PBS NewsHour
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/migrants-anxious-after-mexican-authorities-raid-caravan[7/18/2019 5:49:51 PM]
Menu
Full Episodes
Podcasts
Subscribe
Live
Migrants anxious after Mexican
authorities raid caravan
Nation
Apr 23, 2019 9:56 AM EDT
PIJIJIAPAN, Mexico — Central American migrants hoping to reach the U.S. are finding a
much tougher trek than those in previous caravans, meeting unwelcoming townsfolk and a
surprise raid by Mexican police and immigration agents who detained hundreds in Mexico’s
south.
While their compatriots were been taken into custody Monday, hundreds of other migrants
scrambled away into the brush along the highway in Chiapas state to elude authorities.
Many had already learned they would not be received in towns with the same hospitality
that greeted previous caravans, and now they know they won’t be safe walking along the
rural highway either. Mexican authorities say they detained 367 people in the largest single
raid on a migrant caravan since the groups started moving through the country last year.
Oscar Johnson Rivas fled up a mountain when officers converged on the caravan and
spent six hours hiding in the thick vegetation before carefully making his way back to the
highway with others. Some migrants, including women and children, remained in hiding
without food.
“What we did was find the bush and get as far away as we could so they couldn’t grab us,”
said Rivas, a 45-year-old soldier from El Salvador who said he had to flee his country
because of gang threats.
Left:
A family of Central American
migrants is detained by the
Immigration officers during a raid on
a journey towards the United States,
in Pijijiapan, Mexico. Photo by Jose
Cabezas/Reuters
Related
Mexican police detain
hundreds of Central American
migrants
By Sonia Perez D., Associated
Press
Barr’s decision to eliminate
bond for certain asylum-
seekers, explained
By Alexandra D'Elia
Trump administration wants to
build 2 new migrant tent camps
By Nomaan Merchant, Cedar
Attanasio, Associated Press
Trump sanctuary city idea
could help migrants stay in US
By Astrid Galvan, Morgan Lee,
Associated Press
Go Deeper
central america
immigration
mexico
newsdesk
By —
Sonia Perez D., Associated Press
Leave a comment
Share
Episode
What do you t
comment.
AR696
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 158 of 175
Migrants anxious after Mexican authorities raid caravan | PBS NewsHour
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/migrants-anxious-after-mexican-authorities-raid-caravan[7/18/2019 5:49:51 PM]
“They were grabbing us mercilessly, like we were animals,” he said of the Mexican officials.
“That’s a barbarity, because we’re all human.”
Mexico’s National Migration Institute issued a statement saying agents were carrying out an
immigration check on a group of migrants who “began an aggression” against the agents,
who then called in federal police.
It said 367 people, including a “significant number” of children and women, were “rescued”
and taken to an immigration station.
Journalists saw police target isolated groups at the tail end of a caravan of about 3,000
migrants who were making their way through Chiapas, Mexico’s southernmost state.
As migrants gathered under spots of shade in the burning heat outside the city of Pijijiapan,
federal police and agents arrived in patrol trucks and vans and forcibly wrestled women,
men and children into the vehicles.
The migrants were driven to buses, presumably for subsequent transportation to an
immigration station for deportation processing.
Some women and children wailed and screamed during the detentions on the roadside.
Clothes, shoes, suitcases and strollers littered the scene after they were taken away.
Agents had encouraged groups of migrants that separated from the bulk of the caravan to
rest after some seven hours of trudging along the road, including about half of that under a
broiling sun. When the migrants regrouped to continue, they were detained.
Agents positioned themselves at the head of the group and at the back. Some people in
civilian clothing appeared to be participating in the detentions.
A Central American boy is
transferred to a bus as he is
detained by immigration
officers during a raid in their
journey towards the United
States, in Pijijiapan, Mexico.
Photo by Jose
Cabezas/Reuters
AR697
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 159 of 175
Migrants anxious after Mexican authorities raid caravan | PBS NewsHour
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/migrants-anxious-after-mexican-authorities-raid-caravan[7/18/2019 5:49:51 PM]
After seeing others being detained, some migrants began walking in dense groups and
picked up stones and sticks.
Officials from Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission observed the action from a
distance.
Mexico welcomed the first migrant caravans last year, but the reception has gotten colder
since tens of thousands of migrants overwhelmed U.S. border crossings, causing delays at
the border and angering Mexican residents.
The U.S. also has ramped up pressure on Mexico to do more to stem the flow of migrants.
President Donald Trump railed against the government of his Mexican counterpart, Andrés
Manuel López Obrador, and threatened to shut the entire border down, but then quickly
congratulated Mexico for migrant arrests just a few weeks ago.
Mexico already allows the United States to return some asylum seekers to Mexico as their
cases play out. And government officials said in March they would try to contain migrants in
the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in the south. It is Mexico’s narrowest area and the easiest to
control. Pijijiapan and Mapastepec are not far from the isthmus’ narrowest point, which is in
neighboring Oaxaca state.
In recent months Mexican authorities have deported thousands of migrants, though they
also have issued more than 15,000 humanitarian visas that allow migrants to remain in the
country and work.
A group of about 10 prominent social organizations recently warned that detentions of
migrants have been rising and accused immigration agents and federal, state and local
police of violating their human rights.
The groups said the increased detentions have overwhelmed capacity at the immigration
center in Tapachula. The National Human Rights Commission also said the facility is
overcrowded.
In its most recent statement from last week, the Migration Institute said 5,336 migrants were
in shelters or immigration centers in Chiapas, and over 1,500 of them were “awaiting
deportation.”
The Rights Commission said Sunday that more than 7,500 migrants were in detention, at
shelters or on the road in Chiapas. It urged authorities to carry out a proper census of the
migrants and attend to their needs, particularly children.
By —
Sonia Perez D., Associated Press
Support Provided By:
Learn more
Additional Support Provided By:
AR698
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 160 of 175
Mexico's refugee agency turns to U.N. amid asylum surge, funding cuts - Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/...migration-mexico/mexicos-tiny-refugee-agency-turns-to-u-n-amid-asylum-surge-funding-cuts-idUSKCN1SS06N[7/18/2019 5:45:44 PM]
WORLD NEWS
MAY 22, 2019 / 2:47 AM / 2 MONTHS AGO
Mexico's refugee agency turns to U.N. amid asylum surge,
funding cuts
Lizbeth Diaz, Delphine Schrank
4 MIN READ
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Buckling under surging asylum applications and the lowest budget in
years, Mexico’s tiny refugee agency has turned to the United Nations for help opening three new
offices across the country starting next month, its director said on Tuesday.
Directory of sites
Login
Contact
Support
Business
Markets
World
Politics
TV
More
Discover Thomson Reuters
AR699
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 161 of 175
Mexico's refugee agency turns to U.N. amid asylum surge, funding cuts - Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/...migration-mexico/mexicos-tiny-refugee-agency-turns-to-u-n-amid-asylum-surge-funding-cuts-idUSKCN1SS06N[7/18/2019 5:45:44 PM]
Mexico is on track for 60,000 asylum applications this year, double the 2018 number, said Andres
Ramirez, the head of the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance (COMAR).
The increase is a result of a surge in people leaving Central America, along with Cuba and
countries further afield.
The number of undocumented migrants reaching the U.S. border is the highest in a decade,
triggering threats from U.S. President Donald Trump to punish Mexico if it does not do more to
stop the flows.
Ramirez, who served 28 years with the U.N. refugee agency before joining the administration of
President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, said COMAR was so overwhelmed he had turned to his
former employer for help.
“We at COMAR are simply trying to survive,” Ramirez said in an interview with Reuters.
As well as the rising number of applications, which have doubled for three consecutive years,
COMAR is facing its lowest funding in seven years, with a budget of $1.2 million, as the
government tries to meet austere fiscal targets.
“Our central issue is a concern with resources - we are fighting for them, we are struggling for
them - but we can’t self-finance, we don’t have the capacity in our hands alone to revolve this,”
Ramirez said.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is offering financial support and
staff that will enable COMAR to open offices to deal with the surge, he said.
The first new office will be in the northern border city of Tijuana, then Monterrey, and Palenque
FILE PHOTO: Honduran migrants wait to enter the Mexican Comission for Refugee
Assistance (COMAR) in Tapachula, Mexico, May 13, 2019. REUTERS/Andres
Martinez Casares
AR700
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 162 of 175
Mexico's refugee agency turns to U.N. amid asylum surge, funding cuts - Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/...migration-mexico/mexicos-tiny-refugee-agency-turns-to-u-n-amid-asylum-surge-funding-cuts-idUSKCN1SS06N[7/18/2019 5:45:44 PM]
in the southern border state of Chiapas where the vast majority of mainly Central American
migrants cross into Mexico from Guatemala.
The new offices would double COMAR’s current number. Ramirez said the UNHCR support
included the secondment of personnel to supplement COMAR’s 48-person core staff nationwide.
In response to a request for information, UNHCR said it currently has 104 contractors on loan
with COMAR and was discussing additional staffing. Silvia Garduno, a spokeswoman for the
agency, emphasized that the financial assistance was temporary.
“Reinforcing capacity requires an increase in the allocation in the federal budget for COMAR, but
also measures to simplify procedures and speed up asylum processing,” the agency said.
At the COMAR office in Tapachula, Chiapas state, the opportunity to seek an interview with
COMAR staff has reached such a premium that migrants told Reuters on a recent visit that night-
time sidewalk spots beside the gate can sell for $11 (200 pesos) to give people a headstart in lines
that stretch three blocks.
Ramirez said he recently told staff there to cut back on 12-
hour days to avoid exhaustion.
The Lopez Obrador administration took office in December
and handed out at least 12,000 year-long humanitarian visas
to Central Americans it expected to stay in Mexico. Many
quickly moved to the U.S. border.
After it stopped the program cold within weeks, overwhelmed and facing threats from Trump to
shut the border, more migrants have applied for asylum in Tapachula, COMAR staff say.
Reporting by Lizbeth Diaz and Delphine Schrank; editing by Michael Perry and Leslie Adler
Our Standards:
The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
FILE PHOTO: Migrants rest as they w…
AR701
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 163 of 175
FACT SHEET: NOVEMBER 2018
Human Rights First
Is Mexico Safe for Refugees and Asylum Seekers?
President Trump has repeatedly falsely asserted that the United States can turn away asylum seekers who have
crossed through Mexico without seeking asylum there first—even though there is no legal basis for this claim.
Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen M. Nielsen has also incorrectly stated that asylum seekers must “seek
protections in the first safe country they enter, including Mexico.”
Despite this rhetoric, many refugees face deadly dangers in Mexico. For many, the country is not at all safe.
Mexico falls far short of meeting the legal requirements that would permit U.S. officials to treat it as a “safe third
country” for the purpose of turning back asylum seekers. And since there is no safe third country agreement in
place, the president and members of his administration have no legal basis to state that asylum seekers must
apply for asylum in Mexico.
Rather than returning refugees to a country that is currently unable to provide them safety, the United States
should strengthen support to build an effective refugee protection system in Mexico. This factsheet explains the
concept of safe third country agreements under U.S. law and why Mexico does not meet the legal requirements.
What is a “safe third country”?
Under a “safe third country” agreement, the United States and another country recognize that both countries
effectively protect refugees seeking asylum. With an agreement in place, asylum seekers who request protection
in the United States after first passing through the “safe” country may be returned there and given an opportunity
to request protection in that other country.
Canada is the only country that has a safe third country agreement with the United States. The Canada-
U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement was signed on December 5, 2002 and came into effect on December 29,
2004. As a result, asylum seekers who enter the United States after passing through Canada will be returned and
permitted to request asylum there unless they qualify for an exception to the agreement.
Congress has spelled out three requirements that must be met before U.S. officials and agencies can block
refugees from asylum on these grounds. Specifically, to be a safe third country, the Immigration and
Nationality Act requires that the country must:
Guarantee asylum seekers protection from persecution: The country must be a place where the
refugee’s “life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in
a particular social group, or political opinion.”
Provide access to “full and fair” procedures to assess asylum requests: The country must afford
“access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.”
Agree to be designated a safe third country: The country must have entered into a bilateral or
multilateral safe third country agreement with the United States.
AR702
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 164 of 175
FACT SHEET: NOVEMBER 2018
Human Rights First
Mexico does not meet “safe third country” legal requirements
As Human Rights First has long documented, given the deadly dangers in Mexico and the deficiencies in its
refugee protection system, Mexico falls far short of meeting “safe” country standards under U.S. law:
Refugees are not adequately protected in Mexico.
As detailed in Human Rights First’s 2017 report and updated in a 2018 fact sheet, refugees and migrants face
acute risks of kidnapping, disappearance, sexual assault, trafficking, and other grave harms in Mexico.
Refugees in Mexico are targeted due to their inherent vulnerabilities as refugees but also on account of their race,
nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other reasons. Certain groups—“including the LGBTQ
community, people with indigenous heritage, and foreigners in general”—face consistent persecution in Mexico
and are often forced to seek protection outside of the country. Gay men and transgender women, for example,
flee discrimination, beatings, attacks, and a lack of protection by police in Mexico. Some refugees have been
trafficked into forced labor, while women and girls have been trafficked to Mexico’s southern border where they
have been exploited in bars and night clubs that cater to police, military, and other forces. Doctors Without
Borders reported that 68% of refugees and migrants it interviewed had been exposed to violence and almost one
third of refugee and migrant women had been sexually assaulted. Additionally, Amnesty International reports that
criminal investigations of massacres and crimes against migrants remain “shrouded by impunity.”
Many refugees are left unprotected due to lack of access to full and fair procedures
Deficiencies, barriers, and flaws in Mexico’s asylum system leave many refugees unprotected and
Mexican authorities continue to improperly return asylum seekers to their countries of persecution. A 2018
Amnesty International report found that Mexican migration officials routinely turn back Central American asylum
seekers and that 75 percent of migrants and asylum seekers surveyed were not informed of their right to
seek asylum by migration officers in detention facilities, even though this is required by Mexican law. Less than
one percent of unaccompanied children apprehended in Mexico receive international protection, as detailed by
Human Rights Watch.
Despite progress since launching an asylum system, barriers persist, leaving many refugees unprotected. The
system for seeking legal protection lacks national reach and capacity. COMAR—"The Mexican Commission for
Refugee Aid”—has only four offices around the country, leaving many refugees without access to the system.
After halting its processing of asylum applications in 2017, Mexico only reopened its system in 2018 after a
successful lawsuit by the Mexican Commission for the Defense and Protection of Human Rights. Refugee
processing in Mexico remains plagued by backlogs and understaffing. In addition, refugees are blocked from
protection under an untenable 30-day filing deadline, denied protection by COMAR officers who claim that
refugees targeted by groups with national reach can safely relocate within their countries, and lack an
effective appeal process to correct wrongful denials of protection. Finally, declining and disparate asylum
recognition rates for Central Americans raise concerns that individuals from those countries remain unprotected.
Mexico has not agreed to be a safe third country.
Mexico and the United States do not have a “safe third country” agreement.
AR703
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 165 of 175
MEXICO'S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM
OVERLOOKED,
UNDER-PROTECTED
AR704
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 166 of 175
Amnesty International is a global movement of more
than 7 million people who campaign for a world where
human rights are enjoyed by all.
Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and other international human rights standards.
We are independent of any government, political
ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded
mainly by our membership and public donations.
Cover photo:
Illustration by Joaquín Castro Caceres for Amnistía Internacional
© Amnesty International / Joaquín Castro Caceres
Index: AMR 41/7602/2018
Original language: English
© Amnesty International 2018
Except where otherwise noted, content in this document is licensed
under a Creative Commons (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives,
international 4.0) licence.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode
For more information please visit the permissions page on our website:
www.amnesty.org
Where material is attributed to a copyright owner other than Amnesty
International this material is not subject to the Creative Commons licence.
First published in 2018 by Amnesty International Ltd
Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street, London WC1X 0DW, UK
amnesty.org
AR705
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 167 of 175
3
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM
Amnesty International
CONTENTS
GLOSSARY
4
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5
1.1 Methodology
6
2. FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS: FAILURES IN SCREENING PROCESSES
8
2.1 First stage of screening by INM field agents
10
2.2 Falling through the cracks: Second stage of screening in detention centres
11
3. LEGAL LIMBO AND HASTY RETURNS
14
3.1 Voluntary return papers
14
3.2 The failure to fully inform individuals about their casefile
16
3.3 Failures of INM information systems
16
4. ILL-TREATMENT OF MIGRANTS AS PART OF THE DEPORTIONS MACHINE
18
4.1 Arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and its impact on refoulement
20
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
22
AR706
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 168 of 175
4
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM
Amnesty International
GLOSSARY
TERM
DESCRIPTION
REFUGEE
A refugee is a person who has fled from their own country because they have a well-founded fear of
persecution and their government cannot or will not protect them. Asylum procedures are designed
to determine whether someone meets the legal definition of a refugee. When a country recognizes
someone as a refugee, it gives them international protection as a substitute for the protection of their
home country.
ASYLUM-
SEEKER
An asylum-seeker is someone who has left their country seeking protection but has yet to be
recognized as a refugee. During the time that their asylum claim is being examined, the asylum-
seeker must not be forced to return to their country of origin. Under international law, being a
refugee is a fact-based status, and arises before the official, legal grant of asylum.
MIGRANT
A migrant is a person who moves from one country to another to live and usually to work, either
temporarily or permanently, or to be reunited with family members. Regular migrants are foreign
nationals who, under domestic law, are entitled to stay in the country. Irregular migrants are foreign
nationals whose migration status does not comply with the requirements of domestic immigration
legislation and rules. They are also called “undocumented migrants”. The term “irregular” refers
only to a person’s entry or stay. Amnesty International does not use the term “illegal migrant.”
UN REFUGEE
CONVENTION
AND PROTOCOL
The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is the core binding international treaty
that serves as the basis for international refugee law. The 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of
Refugees retakes the entire content of the 1951 Convention and simply adds an extension on its
application to all refugees, not just those arising from specific time bound conflicts in the 1940s
and 50s. Mexico has ratified both the Convention and the Protocol while the USA has ratified the
Protocol, which gives it identical obligations. This treaty, along with the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights of 1966, ratified by both USA and Mexico, provide a series of fundamental
rights to be enjoyed by all humans.
REFOULEMENT
Refoulement is the forcible return of an individual to a country where they would be at real risk of
serious human rights violations (the terms “persecution” and “serious harm” are alternatively used).
Individuals in this situation are entitled to international protection; it is prohibited by international
law to return refugees and asylum-seekers to the country they fled – this is known as the principle
of non-refoulement. The principle also applies to other people (including irregular migrants) who
risk serious human rights violations such as torture, even if they do not meet the legal definition of a
refugee. Indirect refoulement occurs when one country forcibly sends them to a place where they at
risk of onwards refoulement; this is also prohibited under international law.
MARAS
Colloquial name commonly given to organized groups from the Northern Triangle of Central America
that are characterized by violent criminal activities and generally associated with territorial control.
AR707
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 169 of 175
5
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM
Amnesty International
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mexico is witnessing a hidden refugee crisis on its doorstep. For a number of years, citizens from
nearby countries who formerly passed through Mexico in search of economic opportunities have
been leaving their countries due to fear for their lives and personal liberty. This briefing analyses the
results of a survey carried out by Amnesty International with 500 responses from migrants and people
seeking asylum travelling through Mexico. The information presented demonstrates that the Mexican
government is routinely failing in its obligations under international law to protect those who are in need
of international protection, as well as repeatedly violating the non-refoulement principle1, a binding
pillar of international law that prohibits the return of people to a real risk of persecution or other serious
human rights violations. These failures by the Mexican government in many cases can cost the lives of
those returned to the country from which they fled.
The so-called “Northern Triangle” countries of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras continue to
experience generalized violence, with homicide rates four to eight times higher than what the World
Health Organization considers “epidemic” homicide levels.2 Nearly all of the respondents to Amnesty
International’s survey came from these three Central American countries.3 Of those detained by
Mexican authorities, 84% (263 out of 310 that answered the question) did not desire to be returned to
their country. Of these, 54% (167 out of 310) identified violence and fear as a principal reason for not
wanting to go back to their country, and 35% (108 out of 310) identified direct personal threats to their
life back home as the reason for not wanting to return.
Violations by Mexican authorities of the non-refoulement principle directly affect human lives and deny
protection to those most at need. One man who came to Mexico seeking asylum after fleeing death
threats in Honduras told Amnesty International he wept in desperation to try to stop his deportation,
yet officials did not listen to him or inform him of his right to lodge an asylum claim, and simply
deported him back to his country. This testimony echoes dozens collected by Amnesty International
and contrasts with the official responses received from Mexican authorities, who informed Amnesty
International that refoulement cases were rare.
Amnesty International analysed the 500 responses received and found 120 testimonies that gave solid
indications that a refoulement had occurred, which is 24% of the total set of responses, and equates
to 40% of the responses provided by those individuals who had been detained by the National Institute
of Migration (INM). These testimonies involved people explicitly seeking asylum or expressing fear for
their lives in their country of origin, yet nevertheless being ignored by the INM and deported to their
country.
In addition, Amnesty International found that 75% of those people detained by the INM were not
informed of their right to seek asylum in Mexico, despite the fact that Mexican law expressly requires
this and public officials assured Amnesty International that the requirement is complied with. Amnesty
International also found evidence of a number of procedural violations of the rights that people seeking
asylum should be afforded in line with international human rights law. These violations effectively deny
them the possibility to challenge their deportation and to obtain protection in Mexico.
1. Article 33 of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees provides that states must not return persons to territories where
their “life or freedom” would be threatened. The non-refoulement principle is also considered a binding principle of international customary
law.
2. The World Health Organization (WHO) considers a murder rate of more than 10 per 100,000 inhabitants to be an epidemic level.
However, in 2016, the murder rate in El Salvador was recorded as 81.2 per 100,000 inhabitants (National Civil Police), in Honduras 58.9
per 100,000 (SEPOL) and in Guatemala 27.3 per 100,000 (National Civil Police). 2017 figures from these same sources noted 60 per
100,000 for El Salvador, 42.8 per 100,000 for Honduras, and 26.1 per 100,000 for Guatemala.
3. Of the 385 people interviewed, 208 people were from Honduras, 97 from El Salvador, 59 from Guatemala, and a series of other countries
represented less than five cases each
AR708
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 170 of 175
6
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM
Amnesty International
1.1 METHODOLOGY
Between May and September 2017 Amnesty International carried out a survey of irregular migrants
and asylum seekers with the aim of understanding how Mexican authorities are implementing their
obligations to ensure the effective enjoyment of the right to seek asylum in Mexico. Surveys were
carried out in queues for government offices, lawyers and UN offices, as well as in migrant shelters,
in the southern states of Chiapas, Tabasco and the northern state of Coahuila. Surveys were also
carried out in a reception centre for deportees in Guatemala. Three hundred and eighty-five people
were surveyed in individual interviews responding to a standardized questionnaire that was read out
to them.4 Many of these people detailed multiple experiences of entering Mexico, giving a total of
500 responses to the questionnaire based on 500 discrete episodes of leaving one’s country. Many
migrants and people seeking asylum cross by land into Mexico more than once, which means that the
data set for this survey was based on each separate experience of crossing into Mexico. At times, one
interviewee filled out a number of survey responses, based on separate journeys they had made over
the years.
Eighty-two per cent of the interviewees were men, 17% were women, 1% did not wish to specify their
gender and 2 cases identified as transgender. The over-representation of males is reflected in the
migratory flow as noted by officials statistics, with females accounting for approximately a quarter of the
apprehensions of irregular migrants carried out in 2017.5 Nevertheless, this official data does not take
into account other routes that may be more precarious or clandestine that women may be forced to
make and precise assessments of women-led migration routes are not readily available.
Of the 500 survey responses collected by Amnesty International, 297 pertained to migrants or people
seeking asylum that had been at one point apprehended by the INM. The rest had either never been
apprehended by Mexican officials, or had been apprehended by police (116 responses) the Army (11
responses) or the Navy (4 responses). Further detail on the role of the police in apprehending migrants
(mostly illegally), will be outlined briefly below, however the focus of this briefing is the role of migration
authorities. Survey responses were anonymous and participants were offered no benefit in their
individual cases in return. The data set gathered is not a randomized sample of the estimated 500,000
irregular migrants that cross Mexico’s southern border annually.6 As such, the percentages presented
here in graphs, while an indication of wider trends, are not a statistical sample of the hundreds of
thousands of people that pass through Mexico each year. Nevertheless, the data obtained from the
survey provides important information on the common practices of Mexican authorities in order to
inform Amnesty International’s recommendations.
4. Of the 385 people surveyed, 208 people were from Honduras, 97 from El Salvador, 59 from Guatemala, and a series of other countries
represented less than five cases each.
5. From January to November 2017, females accounted for 29% of irregular migrants aprehended by the INM:See: Unit for Migratory
Policy, Ministry of the Interior, Unidad de Política Migratoria, Secretaría de Gobernación, Extranjeros Presentados y Devueltos, 2017 Cuadro
3.1.3: Eventos de extranjeros presentados ante la autoridad migratoria, según grupos de edad, condición de viaje y sexo, available at: http://
www.politicamigratoria.gob.mx/es_mx/SEGOB/Extranjeros_presentados_y_devueltos. Last accessed XX January 2018
6. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “Factsheet – Mexico” February 2017 - Available at: http://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/
default/files/Mexico%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Februrary%202017.pdf
AR709
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 171 of 175
7
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM
Amnesty International
THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE OF REFOULEMENT
1. You flee threats to your life and grave danger.
2. You enter Mexico without documents.
3. Tired and hungry, you travel by foot or bus.
4. Migration agents (INM) detain you without explaining anything to you.
5. They lock you up without explaining your right to seek protection in Mexico.
6. They pressure you to sign a deportation paper.
7. They deport you by bus to your possible death back in your country.
AR710
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 172 of 175
8
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM
Amnesty International
2. FALLING THROUGH THE
CRACKS: FAILURES IN
SCREENING PROCESSES
“Here we are not interested in your lives. Our job is to
deport you.”
Mexican INM agent in response to a 27 year old Honduran man who expressed fear of returning to his country.7
The National Institute of Migration (INM) is the federal government body responsible for regulating
borders, travel and residence documents and the flow of regular and irregular migration throughout the
country. The INM is also responsible for apprehending and deporting irregular migrants. It pertains to
the Interior Ministry and has a staff of close to 6,000.8 The officials of the INM that have direct contact
with people seeking asylum generally fall into two categories: INM field agents who carry out a first
stage of interception and apprehensions in field activities such as highways or checkpoints; and INM
officials assigned to migration detention centres, of which the INM has 54 throughout the country.
Amnesty International analysed the 500 survey responses received and found 120 testimonies that
gave solid indications that a refoulement had occurred, which is 24% of the total set of responses, and
equates to 40% of the responses provided by those individuals that had specifically been detained by
the INM. These testimonies involved people seeking asylum more specifically expressing fear for their
lives in their country of origin, yet despite this being ignored by the INM and deported to their country
of origin.
These failures are more than simply negligent practices, and each case of refoulement is a human
rights violation that risks costing the lives of people seeking asylum. The practical experience of an
illegal deportation or refoulement involves the return of a person seeking asylum by land to Guatemala,
Honduras and El Salvador. In the case of El Salvador and Honduras, these countries comprise limited
amounts of territory where mara networks stretch across nearly all regions. Deportation centres
and highway drop-off points for deportees are easily trackable places for these powerful and violent
networks to operate and persecute deportees from different parts of the country.
7. Anonymous survey response from a 27 year old Honduran man interviewed by Amnesty International in the city of Saltillo on 18
September 2017
8. According to the Federal Budget of 2017 (Presupuesto de Egresos de la Federación, 2017), the INM had a staff of 5,809 employees.
AR711
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 173 of 175
9
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM
Amnesty International
SAÚL*: MURDERED THREE WEEKS AFTER BEING ILLEGALY DEPORTED
BACK TO HONDURAS BY THE INM
Saúl worked in the transport industry as a bus driver in Honduras. The transport industry has
been specifically outlined by the UNHCR as one of five specific categories of at-risk profiles
within the context of widespread violence in Honduras, given the grip that maras have through
demanding bus drivers extortions or “war taxes.” In November 2015 Saúl suffered an armed
attack in which two of his sons were seriously wounded. Fearing for his life, Saúl fled to Mexico
and applied for asylum. The COMAR denied him asylum arguing that he had options for security
in his country, and the INM subsequently violated the non-refoulement principle by deporting
him within the 15 day legal window in which he had the right to appeal his claim. Amnesty
International researchers interviewed Saúl in Honduras in July 2016, three weeks after he had
been deported. He expressed an acute fear for his life and had already suffered an attack in his
house on arriving home. A few days later, Saul was murdered.
Amnesty International interviewed Saúl just days
before he was murdered. [An asterisk next to
his name* indicates Amnesty International has
changed the name in order to protect his identity.]
©Amnesty International/Encarni Pindado
Officials of the INM are required by domestic law to “detect foreigners that, based on their expressions
to the authority, or indeed based on their personal condition, can be presumed to be possible asylum
seekers, informing them of their right to request asylum.”9 They are also required to channel those
people that express their intention to seek asylum to Mexico’s refugee agency, the Comisión Mexicana
de Ayuda a Refugiados (COMAR).10 The law and regulations do not distinguish between different
categories of INM officials in relation to this obligation, as all are required to comply with these
requirements, whether they are field agents or officials in detention centres. A representative of the
INM informed Amnesty International that regardless of whether INM officials carry out activities related
to interception and apprehensions in field operations, or whether they are in migration detention
centres, they are all given uniform training on human rights and international refugee law.11 Indeed,
authorities should be capable of screening for protection needs in a variety of settings.12
9. Article 16 of the Reglamento de la Ley sobre Refugiados y Protección Complementaria, available at: http://www.diputados.gob.mx/
LeyesBiblio/regley/Reg_LRPC.pdf
10.
Article 21 of Mexico´s Refugee Law (Ley de Refugiados y Protección Complementaria) outlines that: “Any authority that becomes aware
of the intention of a foreigner to seek refugee status, must immediately advise in writing to the Ministry of the Interior [to which the COMAR
pertains.] The failure to comply with the requirement will be sanctioned in line with the legal stipulations on responsibility of public servants.
[Own translation].
11. Amnesty International interview with INM delegation in Chiapas, southern Mexico, 16 August 2017
12. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) outlines that “Screening and referral can be conducted at border or
coastal entry points, in group reception facilities or in places where detention takes place (including detention centres). See: United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees, “The 10-point action plan: Mechanisms for Screening and Referral”, available at: http://www.refworld.org/
pdfid/5804e0f44.pdf, page 119.
AR712
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 174 of 175
10
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM
Amnesty International
2.1. FIRST STAGE OF SCREENING BY INM FIELD AGENTS
“The INM agent said to me: now that you've been detained, you're screwed and you're gonna
get deported to your country.”
Comments from a Honduran man13 who had fled death threats, describing the response he received from an INM field agent when
he expressed his fear of returning.
The field agents of the INM are often the very first point of contact with Mexican authorities for a
number of migrants and people seeking asylum. Yet, they do not have their names on their official
uniforms, and in many cases function as a faceless force dedicated to apprehending migrants and
asylum seekers and turning them over to migration detention centres without an individualized
assessment of each detainee’s personal circumstances and protection needs.
Amnesty International analysed the conduct of INM field agents and found that this first stage of
screening during interception and apprehension of migrants displays overt failures to detect people
seeking asylum and act accordingly. Amnesty International noted just 10 cases out of 297 people
apprehended by the INM where field agents responded according to the law, by explaining asylum
seekers their right to seek protection in Mexico and informing them of the procedure they could
undergo in the COMAR. While these are promising practices from public officials, the fact that this was
the minority of cases is extremely concerning and points to grave and systemic failures by the INM to
comply with law and international human rights obligations. The vast majority of cases involved INM
field agents ignoring or at times humiliating people seeking asylum in response to their expressions of
fear of return to their country.
Amnesty International found that 69% of those that had been apprehended by INM noted that the
field agent never asked them their reasons for having left their country. This is despite the fact that in
the Latin American Regional Guidelines for the preliminary identification and referral mechanisms for
Migrant Populations,14 one of the preliminary questions that should be asked to irregular migrants is
why the person left their country. While this is one of a series of questions that can be asked during the
first stages of identification of asylum-seekers and refugees, and Amnesty International recommends
more precise questions,15 the fact that field agents did not pose even such entry-level questions reveals
a lack of adequate attention to their legal obligations to screen for people seeking asylum. Many
responses to Amnesty International’s questionnaire noted that INM field agents did not allow migrants
and people seeking asylum to speak and simply shouted orders at them and loaded them into vans.
A number of survey responses pointed to the indifference of INM field agents to the comments from
people seeking asylum as to their fear of returning to their country; comments that by law should
detonate a response from the agent that informs asylum authorities of the intention of the person to
seek asylum.16 A number of responses to Amnesty International’s survey outlined a rude or teasing
attitude from INM agents. INM field agents routinely ignored asylum seekers’ concerns, and told
asylum seekers they could not do anything and that they should talk to their colleagues once they
arrived at the migration detention centre. This response, as will be seen below, is inadequate, given the
fact that the processes in the migration detention centres also routinely fail to detect people seeking
asylum.
13. Interview response to survey carried out with Honduran man in Tapachula, Chiapas state, 14 August 2017
14. These guidelines were agreed upon in an IOM and UNHCR sanctioned process that produced this document in 2013: http://
rosanjose.iom.int/site/sites/default/files/LINEAMIENTOS%20ingles.pdf Page 19.
15. See Amnesty International discussion of screening procedures in Italy: Hotspot Italy: How EU’s flagship approach leads to violations of
refugee and migrant rights, 3 November 2016, Index number: EUR 30/5004/2016, p34ff.
16. Op Cit. See footnote 9.
AR713
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST Document 29-8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 175 of 175File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.344869.29.8.pdf
- Size
- 10,623,517 bytes
- SHA-256
- ceeb991881c04eec2ddd48802b20f07d8d83272dcda3f2ce00f1eff635cf8985
- Original
- archive.org