East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr — Order, Doc. 29-9
Summary
Doc. 29-9 in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr consists of numbered record pages, marked from AR714 onward, that reproduce an Amnesty International report titled "Overlooked, Under-Protected: Mexico's Deadly Refoulement of Central Americans Seeking Asylum." The report pages describe screening of migrants and asylum seekers in Mexico's 54 migration detention centres, stating that only 203 of 297 responses indicated an interview on entry and that 75% said they were not informed of their right to seek asylum. They also discuss the signing of voluntary return papers, the failure to give detainees copies of their casefiles, and INM information systems. The document closes, at page AR791, with a fact sheet on credible fear claims reporting that USCIS processed approximately 100,000 credible fear claims in the last fiscal year.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
One person seeking asylum told Amnesty International “I asked [the INM field agents] for asylum, and
they told me that it didn’t exist, and that in Mexico they didn’t like Hondurans because we commit
mischief.”Another migrant told Amnesty International “the field agents know that you don’t know your
rights. They say whatever they want.”
WHAT WAS THE INM FIELD AGENT´S ATTITUDE WHEN YOU EXPRESSED YOUR REASONS FOR NOT WANTING
TO RETURN TO YOUR COUNTRY?
(171 responses to this question)
2.2 FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS: SECOND STAGE OF
SCREENING IN DETENTION CENTRES
Mexico has 54 migration detention centres, many of which are highly securitized and controlled
facilities resembling prison-style conditions.17 These detention centres are the second stage of
processing for irregular migrants and asylum seekers and are run by a different category of INM
officials that interview detainees, prepare a casefile for each, and determine whether they are to be
deported, which in the case of Central Americans, involves loading them onto buses that leave from
the migration detention centres on Mexico’s southern border. In the case of people seeking asylum,
the law requires that these persons are channelled to COMAR without delay and are shielded from
deportation.18
The INM informed Amnesty International that each migrant or asylum seeker that enters a detention
centre is given at least an hour individually where they are interviewed and explained their rights.19
Nevertheless, only 203 of 297 (68%) of responses from people that passed through detention centres
indicated to Amnesty International they were given an interview when they entered. Of those that said
they were given an interview, 57% said that it lasted less than ten minutes. Thirty-five percent said their
interview lasted less than 30 minutes, and only 8% noted that it lasted more than half an hour. The
UNHCR notes that the recommended time for screening interviews is between 30 minutes and a few
hours per person.20
17. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment noted having received reports of
beatings, threats, humiliation and insults experienced by migrants in Mexico’s migration detention centres in his visit to Mexico in 2014
18. Op. cit. see footnote 9.
19. Representative of the General Directorate for Control and Verification of the INM in an Interview with Amnesty International, Mexico
City, 2 May 2017.
20. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, December 2016: “The 10-point action plan: Mechanisms for Screening and
Referral”, available at: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5804e0f44.pdf, page 119
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM 11
Amnesty International
AR714
The data collected by Amnesty International demonstrates a systematic failure to properly inform
detained migrants and people seeking asylum of their rights. This is a violation of the law by the INM,
which aims to ensure proper protection for asylum seekers and guard against illegal refoulement of
people whose lives are at risk. It is extremely concerning that 75% of responses from people who
passed through detention centres noted that they were not informed of their right to seek asylum in
Mexico.
WERE YOU INFORMED OF YOUR RIGHT TO SEEK ASYLUM?
(297 responses of people that passed through migration detention centres)
DURATION OF THE INTERVIEW IN THE MIGRATION DETENTION CENTRE
(297 responses of people that passed through a migration center)
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM 12
Amnesty International
AR715
“The INM has not improved in informing people about
asylum. People get the information by word of mouth.”
Lawyer working on asylum and migration cases in Chiapas in the south of Mexico
Also of concern is the fact that in numerous cases, INM officers told people seeking asylum that
their consul was the person in charge of explaining to them their rights to asylum in Mexico, thereby
indirectly pushing them to contact their consular authorities. International practice tends to shield
asylum-seekers from contact with their consular authorities, as a form of protection against the risk of
identification, retaliation and human rights violations at the hands of state agents.21
GIVEN THE RUN-AROUND IN THREE MIGRATION DETENTION CENTERS:
"The people in the migration detention centre did not advise or direct me well. They told me that it would be better to
return to my country, ...They gave me lots of pretexts, “buts”. They said there was no COMAR office in the state I was
in, so it was going to take months for my claim, so it was better to go back to my country. At first I was in the migration
detention centre [in a northern state of the country]. From that place, and from the very first moment, I said I wanted
asylum. They told me they couldn’t do anything. On arrival at the next migration detention centre in Mexico City, the
official said to me: “I can’t do anything, you are already on the list to be returned to your country.” It was not until
Tapachula, after speaking to my consul, that I was able to speak to the COMAR!"
Comments from an El Salvadorian woman interviewed by Amnesty International who passed through three different
detention centres: One in a state of northern Mexico [location has been omitted to protect the identity of the interviewee],
then Mexico City and then Tapachula, Chiapas, on the southern border. In none of these did the INM properly inform her
and it was only by chance that her consul informed her of the asylum procedure.
21. Article 21 of Mexico´s Refugee Law (Ley de Refugiados y Protección Complementaria) outlines that consuls must not be informed of
their citizens´ asylum claim, only unless the person gives express consent.
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM 13
Amnesty International
AR716
3. LEGAL LIMBO AND HASTY
RETURNS
“I can't do anything for you – you are already on the list for
the deportation bus.”
Comments by an INM official to a 25-year-old man from El Salvador who expressed fear for his life if he was returned to his
country. He told Amnesty International that INM officials did not let him read his return papers, and simply loaded him onto
the bus to be deported.22
The detention and return of an irregular migrant or asylum seeker to their country of origin is the
default response that the INM takes in relation to Central Americans arriving in Mexico. The INM opens
a casefile for each person detained, taking the form of an administrative legal procedure, in which the
person detained has 15 days to present arguments in their favour and seek legal counsel.23 Once all
of these stages are completed, or once the person signs papers withdrawing their intention to present
arguments within the 15 day window, the INM prepares a resolution concluding the casefile and places
the irregular migrant on a list to board a bus headed for their country of origin. The names on this list
are checked off by the consul of the country of origin who verifies the nationality of each person.
3.1 VOLUNTARY RETURN PAPERS
An alarming aspect of the way the administrative migratory procedure is implemented in practice is
that one of the very first steps in putting together a casefile involves detainees signing a number of
papers, accepting their “voluntary return”24 to their country and waiving their rights to present legal
arguments in their favour within the stipulated 15-day procedural window. This is the default process
that is carried out in the first interview or “declaration” (comparacencia) of the migrant or asylum-
seeker before an INM official in the detention centre. This comparecencia takes place within the first
24 hours of a migrant or asylum-seeker entering the detention centre, and it is at this time that the INM
official is by law required to comprehensively explain to them their right to asylum, among other rights.
In practice, this process often involves the INM official asking the detainee to sign a number of papers,
often without explaining their contents. It is extremely concerning that the signing of return papers
and the waiving of very important procedural rights are the default steps in this process. Rather than
being informed in detail of the different avenues available to them, including seeking asylum, thereby
allowing an informed decision by each person, migrants are routinely asked to sign “voluntary return”
22. Anonymous survey responses from an interview carried out with an El Salvadoran man seeking asylum in Mexico, interviewed in
Tapachula, Chiapas state, 8 August 2017
23. Article 56 of the Federal Law on Administrative Procedures (Ley Federal de Procedimiento Administrativo) outlines that each party
in an administrative legal process must be formerly notified with the lodging of a deed as to the opening of the period for arguments and
responses. Nevertheless, this does not occur in relation to the Migratory Administrative Process [Procedimiento Administrativo Migratorio].
24. "Voluntary return” refers to deportations which do not imply administrative sanctions on re-entry in Mexico, as opposed to official
deportations, which have punitive implications upon re-entry.
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM 14
Amnesty International
AR717
papers, which effectively allow for their deportation. Since the signing of the “voluntary return” paper
is a default step on arriving at a migration detention centre, in order not to be returned to their country
detainees must actively desist from this return, and only then will it be reversed. Reasons for desisting
on “voluntary return” papers may include the decision to request asylum, or the decision to open a
judicial proceeding to stop one’s deportation. However, many irregular migrants and asylum seekers
are also asked to sign a paper waiving their rights to present legal arguments in their favour within the
stipulated 15 day procedural window.
“The INM official in the detention centre said ´if you don’t
sign here [my voluntary return paper], we won’t give you
food, you won’t be able to have a shower. We will treat you
like you don’t exist.' ”
Comments from a 23 year old Honduran man25 to Amnesty International regarding his experience in the detention centre in
Acayucan, Veracruz, in 2017.
According to the testimonies collected by Amnesty International, people seeking asylum whose lives
are at risk in Central America are very frequently pressured into signing “voluntary return” deportation
papers. Amnesty International received numerous testimonies of people in detention centres being
hastily asked to sign voluntary return papers without being explained what they were, as well as a
number of cases where people desired to seek asylum yet were ignored and told to sign their return
papers. In some cases, INM officials in immigration detention centres were verbally forceful with
asylum seekers or even pressured them into signing papers through coercive tactics. These overt
displays of illegality on the part of INM officials are demonstrative of an institutional culture that enables
systematic failures in complying with the non-refoulement principle.
“The lady from INM told me 'I'm not even going to talk
with you.' She got angry with me because I didn't sign my
deportation.”
Comments from a Guatemalan woman who had asked for asylum but was refused access to the procedure while in
immigration detention
25. Anonymous survey interview carried out in Saltillo, Coahuila state, 19 September 2017
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM 15
Amnesty International
AR718
3.2 THE FAILURE TO FULLY INFORM INDIVIDUALS ABOUT
THEIR CASEFILE
People seeking asylum and migrants are made even more vulnerable by the fact that they are never
given a copy of their “voluntary return” paper or the casefile that pertains to them. This undermines
their ability to understand the process they are being subjected to or to oppose any of the decisions
made about their case. In the case of “voluntary return” papers, a public official co-signs each of
these papers alongside the detainee. Denying rights-holders a copy of these papers strips them of any
possibility for redress in light of arbitrary or illegal actions by authorities.
A lawyer working on dozens of cases of detained migrants and asylum seekers in the state of Chiapas
told Amnesty International it is even very difficult for her to access casefiles. The fact that legal
representatives also battle to access such information gravely undermines asylum seekers’ rights to
effective legal counsel.26
3.3 FAILURES OF INM INFORMATION SYSTEMS
In addition, internal systems within the INM enable repeated breaches of the non-refoulement
principle. In an interview with Amnesty International, an INM chief in the southern state of Chiapas27
admitted that the internal INM computer registries do not have a field on each person’s individual file
as to whether they are an asylum seeker or not. This is a grave oversight from the INM, the very same
body that is able to control a sophisticated system of biodata, travel permissions and entry permits
for each passport holder on its computer database. The fact that no unified system exists within INM
databases that indicates whether a person is an asylum seeker or not is extremely concerning and
leaves open the possibility that these at risk populations fall through the cracks. Amnesty International
has received a number of reports of people seeking asylum being deported despite being in a current
process of an asylum claim before the COMAR. Amnesty International has also received a number of
reports of INM field agents apprehending asylum seekers and then ripping up their official paper from
COMAR. This paper specifically calls on the INM to refrain from deporting them and asylum seekers
carry it on them with their name and photo.
26. In line with article 8 (1) and (2) of the American Convention of Human Rights, those people before an administrative legal process,
as is the case with detained migrants and asylum seekers subject to deportation, have the right to be heard before competent authority;
to have access to a legal representative and interpreter at no charge; and the right to appeal the decision that affects them (including
deportation or “voluntary return”).
27. Amnesty International interview with INM delegation in Chiapas, southern Mexico, 16 August 2017
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM 16
Amnesty International
AR719
Emilia and one of her younger sons
©Amnesty International/Benjamín Alfaro Velázquez
EMILIA* AND FAMILY: FINDING SAFETY AND A NEW LIFE IN MEXICO
AFTER FORMERLY BEING DEPORTED
Emilia fled El Salvador and arrived in Mexico in late 2016 with her seven children,28 after two
of her other children and her brother had been killed by the mara in El Salvador. Her teenage
daughter had also been attacked by the mara and the family couldn’t take it anymore and fled
the country. On arrival to Mexico, Emilia’s eldest daughter went in to labor and had to be rushed
to a hospital on entry into Mexico in order to give birth to Emilia’s first grandchild, a baby girl. The
family rented a small hotel room in southern Mexico in the days following, and soon afterwards
Emilia had to take a bus back to the hospital to carry out paperwork for the vaccinations of
the newborn baby. On her way to the regional hospital in Tapachula, Chiapas state, Emilia
was stopped at an INM checkpoint alongside her teenage son who was accompanying her.
Emilia pleaded with the INM agents not to return her to El Salvador where her life was at risk,
and through tears, told them that she was on her way to the hospital for the paperwork for her
newborn granddaughter. INM agents ignored her pleas, and detained her and her son in the
nearby detention centre where they were separated and deported a few days later. By sheer
luck, on arriving in El Salvador, Emilia was able to find her son and a willing citizen lent her some
money to quickly return to Mexico. She found the rest of her family on return to Mexico, and
remained living in a cramped room on the border, all together, for months on end while they
awaited their asylum claim outcome. Emilia and her family were granted international protection
in Mexico in April 2017. After a few months, the family organized themselves to move to northern
Mexico where they currently live. Emilia’s children are now attending school and her baby
granddaughter is now walking. Her eldest daughter is working in a local shop and the elder sons
have obtained agricultural work. The family told Amnesty International they feel safe and out of
harm’s way.
28. For the full story of threats and persecution against Emilia and her family, see: Amnesty International Facing Walls: USA and Mexico´s
Violation of the Rights of Asylum Seekers. June 15, 2017. AMR 01/6426/2017. Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/es/documents/
amr01/6426/2017/en/
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM 17
Amnesty International
AR720
4. ILL-TREATMENT OF
MIGRANTS AS PART OF THE
DEPORTATION MACHINE
The almost automatic response by federal authorities to irregular migrants is to apprehend them and
turn them over to migration detention centres. As outlined above, the INM is the authority responsible
for this function, nevertheless Mexico’s Migration Law specifically allows for the Federal Police to act
in an auxiliary function alongside the INM in migratory verification exercises.29 Notwithstanding this
stipulation, the involvement of the Federal Police must respond to an express request by the INM, and
police cannot simply pick up migrants in different parts of the country as part of their daily functions.30
Unfortunately, irregular migrants and people seeking asylum are often subjected to arbitrary detentions
by federal, state and municipal police.
POLICE VIOLENCE AND ILL-TREATMENT
A total of 68% of those 116 responses that detailed a detention by the police described their
treatment as “bad” or “very bad”.
Federal and municipal police were most commonly mentioned as being involved in
apprehensions that very frequently involved robbery or extortion
of migrants by police. On a limited number of occasions police
handed migrants over to migration detention centres.
Some testimonies noted torture or ill-treatment by police: One
migrant told Amnesty International:
"They beat me and applied electric shocks to me and they took
my money. I told them I had rights, but they tortured me with
a pistol that they had on their waist. They gave me electric
shocks for 10 minutes" 31
The treatment by INM agents in apprehensions did not rate as poorly as the police in the response to
Amnesty International’s survey. While this is promising to note, the fact that the INM did not present
such overwhelmingly poor ratings as police does not mean there is no cause for concern.
29. Mexico´s Migration Law (Ley de Migración) outlines in its Article 81: The revision of documents of people entering and leaving the
country, as well as the inspection of transport lines entering and leaving the country, are considered actions of migratory control. In these
actions, the Federal Police will act in an auxiliary function, in coordination with the National Institute of Migration.
30. Mexico´s Migration Law (Ley de Migración) outlines in its Article 96: Authorities will collaborate with the National Institute of Migration
in the exercise of its functions, when the Institute requests it, without this implying that authorities can independently carry out functions of
migratory control, verification and revision.
31. Amnesty International has received a number of reports about the use of Tasers against migrants and asylum seekers throughout
Mexico. The reports focus on the use of these instruments by federal agents, yet it is not clear in testimonies whether the INM also carries
these instruments.
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM 18
Amnesty International
AR721
Amnesty International received a number of reports of grave human rights violations committed by
INM officials during the moments of apprehension as well as in detention centres. One Honduran
man32 told Amnesty International that on entering Mexico in the southern state of Tabasco, he was
apprehended by INM agents who tied him up and beat him with a tennis ball wrapped inside a wet
sock in order to avoid leaving marks on his body. A number of other migrants and asylum seekers
mentioned beatings and forceful treatment during their apprehension by INM agents, as well as
racist and humiliating remarks. One young Honduran man told Amnesty International that an INM
agent offered to let him go free in return for sexual favours.33This chain of ill treatment against people
seeking asylum and migrants is replicated during the time in immigration detention. While a number
of migrants and asylum seekers told Amnesty International that the treatment in immigration detention
centers was “fine”, a number of responses pointed to ill- treatment. In addition, Amnesty International
has documented a number of instances of prolonged detentions for months or even up to a year,
including the detention of small children and babies in detention centers. A citizen advisory body of
the INM recently released a comprehensive report based on site visits and inspections of migration
detention centres, which signalled the commonplace use of practices that undermine the physical and
mental health of detainees and go against international standards that call for the non-detention of
people seeking asylum.34
In addition, Amnesty International has received a number or reports from lawyers and civil society
organizations of solitary confinement in “punishment cells” in migration detention centres, where
detainees can be kept for weeks on end. In at least three testimonies, Amnesty International was
informed by detainees that they had been separated and placed in a small cell with very little light,
where they remained all day and were not able to join other detainees during meal times. The reasons
for placing detainees in these cells were in two cases in response to a fight or scuffle that guards
claimed the detainee had been part of, and in the third case the confinement was a response to a
woman who had experienced a psychotic episode while inside the detention centre.
Amnesty International questioned the INM on the existence of these solitary confinement cells. After
an initial denial of their existence, officials admitted that their installations did in fact allow for this sort
of imposed segregation of certain individuals.35 While there are no doubt security concerns inside
migration detention centres that may warrant limited disciplinary measures, the conditions reported
in these “punishment cells” appear disproportionate in relation to international standards on the
deprivation of liberty and rights of detainees.36 In addition, it is important to emphasize that irregular
migrants and asylum seekers have not committed a crime and are not being detained on criminal
charges, as would be the case in prisons.
32. Honduran man interviewed in an anonymous survey response in the city of Saltillo, Coahuila state, on 18 September 2017
33. Survey interview - anonymous response from a 20 year old man from Honduras interviewed in Tenosique, Tabasco State, 29 May
2017
34. Citizen Council of the National Institute of Migration, (Consejo Ciudadano del Instituto Nacional de Migración). Personas en detención
migratoria en México: Misión de Monitoreo de Estaciones Migratorias y Estancias Provisionales del Instituto Nacional de Migración, July
2017
35. Amnesty International interview with INM delegation in Chiapas, southern Mexico, 16 August 2017.
36. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) prohibits solitary
confinement under a variety of circumstances. For more information, see: https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/GA-
RESOLUTION/E_ebook.pdf
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM 19
Amnesty International
AR722
4.1 ARBITRARY DETENTION OF ASYLUM SEEKERS AND
ITS IMPACT ON REFOULEMENT
Migrants, asylum
seekers and refugees
should not suffer any
restriction on their
liberty or other rights
(either detention or
so-called alternatives
to detention) unless
such a restriction is
(a) prescribed by law;
(b) necessary in the
specific circumstances;
and (c) proportionate
to the legitimate aim
pursued. In particular,
any measure (either
custodial or non-
custodial) restricting
the right to liberty of
migrants, asylum- The entry point for men at a migration detention centre in the southern state of Chiapas
seekers and refugees ©Amnesty International
must be exceptional
and based on a case-by-case assessment of the personal situation of the individual concerned,
including their age, history, need for identification and risk of absconding, if any. The individual
concerned should be provided with a reasoned decision in a language they understand. Children, both
those unaccompanied and those who migrate with their family, should never be detained, as detention
is never in their best interests.37
In the case of Mexico, the decision to detain an irregular migrant or asylum seeker is almost completely
devoid of any individualized assessment. Detention is the automatic response, and all irregular
migrants apprehended by INM are detained, even if they express a wish to seek asylum. This flies in
the face of international law under Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) which prohibits arbitrary detention.38 In addition, due to the failures in the screening system
discussed above, asylum-seekers end up being unlawfully detained together with the migrants.
Under the UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, states are not allowed to apply punitive
measures to those seeking asylum.39 The detention of people seeking asylum can be seen as a punitive
measure that undermines their intention to seek protection. In Mexico, the prospect of being unlawfully
detained often pushes asylum-seekers to return to their country of origin, despite the risks they face
upon return.
37. See also:“UNHCR’s position regarding the detention of refugee and migrant children in the migration context” (January 2017)
clarifying that “children should not be detained for immigration purposes, irrespective of their legal/migratory status or that of their parents,
and detention is never in their best interests.: http://www.refworld.org/docid/503489533b8.html
38. In addition, The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has explicitly stated that where the detention of unauthorized immigrants is
mandatory, regardless of their personal circumstances, it violates the prohibition of arbitrary detention in Article 9 of the UDHR and Article
9 of the ICCPR. See Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on its visit to the United Kingdom, E/ CN.4/1999/63/Add.3, 18
December 1998, Paragraph33
39. 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, Article 31. Full text of the Convention available at: http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM 20
Amnesty International
AR723
There may be a correlation between periods in migration detention and refoulement of asylum seekers
from Mexico. Of 49 responses that noted that they wished to return to their country, eight that had
been apprehended by INM said that the reason they wanted to return to their country was because
they did not want to remain in migration detention. In the case of Emilia* (see Section 3), despite the
fact that her life was at grave risk in El Salvador, she told Amnesty International that she could not bear
to be locked up and separated from her son in detention, so she decided to risk her life and sign her
voluntary return paper that would allow her to get out of detention, yet at the same time risk her life in
the hope of being released and reunited with her son and family.
Such examples demonstrate that the failures in screening processes for asylum seekers, coupled with
the failures of the migration detention system, end up enabling further violations by Mexico of the non-
refoulement principle.
A recent promising development from the INM has been the implementation of the Programme
of Alternatives to Detention (Programa de Alternativas a la Detención) since August 2016, as a
result of an agreement between COMAR, INM and the UNCHR. Amnesty has observed that a
number of asylum seekers are being released as a result of this programme, yet many failures
remain. Before August 2016, asylum seekers making claims from inside a migration detention
centre remained in detention for up to 3 months or more. Since late 2016, the majority of
asylum seekers in detention centres are now being released within a matter of weeks due to the
Programme of Alternatives to Detention that places them in migrant shelters run by civil society
organizations.
Nevertheless, it is concerning that this programme is not institutionalized or published officially
and thus risks being simply an act of good faith that could disappear at any moment.
In 2016, 24% of asylum claims commenced with COMAR were abandoned by the asylum
seeker before the procedure was concluded. The 2017 rate of abandonment of asylum claims
had dropped to 16% by August, according to figures published by the COMAR. These figures
demonstrate that the fact that asylum seekers are no longer being detained for such prolonged
periods could be having an impact on their adherence to the asylum procedure in Mexico and
possibilities for obtaining protection rather than being returned to their country.
Street scene near Ciudad Hidalgo, on the Mexico - Guatemala border
© Amnesty International
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM 21
Amnesty International
AR724
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE PRESIDENT:
• Urgently order a review of screening processes implemented by the National Institute of Migration
(INM). This review must have the aim of:
• Ensuring irregular migrants who are apprehended and detained are properly informed of
their right to seek asylum in Mexico;
• Guaranteeing that their access to asylum procedures faces no obstacles; and
• Curbing illegal practices of refoulement and ensuring they are met with administrative
sanction.
TO THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MIGRATION (INM):
• Urgently implement a review of screening processes implemented by the National Institute of
Migration (INM). This review must have the aim of:
• Implementing a pro-active screening system that improves identification of potential asylum
seekers within the first moments of contact with the INM;
• Ensuring irregular migrants who are apprehended and detained are properly informed of
their right to seek asylum in Mexico;
• Guaranteeing their access to asylum procedures faces no obstacles;
• Curbing illegal practices of refoulement and ensure they are met with administrative
sanction.
• Improve internal coordination databases and processes to ensure that asylum seekers are clearly
identified in official registries to avoid oversights that enable unlawful deportations.
• Publish and institutionalize the Programa de Alternativas a la Detención in the Official Gazette
(Diario Official de la Federacion).
• Provide all detained migrants and asylum seekers, as well as their legal representatives, with a full
photocopy of their casefile papers on entry to a detention centre as well as a copy of their voluntary
return paper and resolution in their administrative migratory procedure.
OVERLOOKED, UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM 22
Amnesty International
AR725
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
IS A GLOBAL MOVEMENT
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.
WHEN INJUSTICE HAPPENS
TO ONE PERSON, IT
MATTERS TO US ALL.
CONTACT US JOIN THE CONVERSATION
info@amnesty.org www.facebook.com/AmnestyGlobal
+44 (0)20 7413 5500 @AmnestyOnline
AR726
OVERLOOKED,
UNDER-PROTECTED
MEXICO’S DEADLY REFOULEMENT OF CENTRAL
AMERICANS SEEKING ASYLUM
Mexico is witnessing a hidden refugee crisis on its doorstep.
Citizens from nearby countries who formerly left Guatemala,
Honduras and El Salvador and passed through Mexico in
search of economic opportunities have for a number of
years been leaving their countries due to fear for their lives
and personal liberty. This briefing outlines the results of a
questionnaire 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 treaty obligations under international law to
protect those who are in need of international protection, as
well as repeatedly violating the non-refoulement principle, a
binding pillar of international law that prohibits the return of
people to life-threatening situations.
Index: AMR 41/7602/2018
January 2018
amnesty.org
AR727
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
Menu
Searc
Search
RELATED MATERIALS
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices
The annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – the Human Rights Reports – cover
internationally recognized individual, civil, political, and worker rights, as set forth in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international agreements. The U.S.
Department of State submits reports on all countries receiving assisance and all United Nations
member sates to the U.S. Congress in accordance with the Foreign Assisance Act of 1961 and
the Trade Act of 1974.
APRIL 20, 2018
Share
Share
IN THIS SECTION /
PREFACE
Preface
We are a nation founded on the belief that every person is endowed with inalienable rights.
Promoting and defending these rights is central to who we are as a country.
The 2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (The Human Rights Reports) document the
satus of human rights and worker rights in nearly 200 countries and territories. These reports are
required by U.S. law and are used by a variety of actors, including the U.S. Congress, the Executive
branch, and the Judicial branch as a factual resource for decision making in matters ranging from
AR728
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
assisance to asylum.
The 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy recognizes that corrupt and weak governance threatens
global sability and U.S. interess. Some governments are unable to maintain security and meet the
basic needs of their people, while others are simply unwilling. States that resrict freedoms of
expression and peaceful assembly; that allow and commit violence agains members of religious,
ethnic, and other minority groups; or that undermine the fundamental dignity of persons are morally
reprehensible and undermine our interess. The Governments of China, Russia, Iran, and North
Korea, for example, violate the human rights of those within their borders on a daily basis and are
forces of insability as a result.
Our foreign policy refects who we are and promotes freedom as a matter of principle and interes.
We seek to lead other nations by example in promoting jus and efective governance based on the
rule of law and respect for human rights. The United States will continue to support those around
the world sruggling for human dignity and liberty.
I am pleased to release the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017 on behalf of the
Department of State.
John J. Sullivan
Acting Secretary of State
Overview and Acknowledgements
WHY THE REPORTS ARE PREPARED
This report is submitted to the Congress by the Department of State pursuant to Sections 116(d)
and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assisance Act of 1961. 19 U.S.C. § 2464, 2467 also require that U.S.
foreign and trade policy take into account countries’ human rights and worker rights performance
and that country reports be submitted to the Congress on an annual basis.
This report includes reports on several countries that do not fall into the categories esablished by
these satutes and thus are not covered by the congressional requirement.
The report addresses situations and events in calendar year 2017 only.
AR729
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
HOW THE REPORTS ARE PREPARED
The Department of State prepared this report using information from U.S. embassies and
consulates abroad, foreign government ofcials, nongovernmental and international organizations,
juriss and legal experts, journaliss, academics, labor activiss, and published reports. U.S.
diplomatic missions abroad prepared the initial drafts of the individual country reports.
Once the initial drafts of the individual country reports were completed, the Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), in cooperation with other Department of State ofces, reviewed
and edited the reports, drawing on its own sources of information and the Department of Labor.
Bureau ofcers also consulted experts on worker rights, refugee issues, military and police topics,
women’s issues, and legal matters, among many others. The guiding principles were that all
information be reported objectively, thoroughly, and fairly. DRL also ensured that all reports followed
the same methodology and conformed to sandard format and sructure.
DRL uses hyperlinks to other key human rights documents produced by the Department of State
and the Department of Labor. Specifcally, readers are asked to follow hyperlinks for complete
information on religious freedom issues by consulting the International Religious Freedom Report,
on human trafcking by consulting the Trafcking in Persons Report, and on child abductions by
consulting the Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction. Additionally linked is the
Department of Labor’s Findings on the Wors Forms of Child Labor.
THE DRL EDITORIAL TEAM
Senior Advisor: Marc Susser
Coordinator of Human Rights Reports: Stephen Eisenbraun
Ofce Directors and Deputy Directors:
Directors: Mark Dieker, Michael Kelleher, Chrisine Lawson, Stephen Moody, Jon Piechowski, J.
Andrew Plowman, Susan O’Sullivan.
Deputies: Jaroslaw Z. Anders, Mary Angelini, Matthew Hickey, Catherine Newling, Jennifer Nichols,
Jason Vordersrasse, Yelda Kazimi.
Senior Editors: Jonathan Bemis, Jillian Burns, Douglas Dearborn, Stephen Eisenbraun, Jerome L.
AR730
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
Hoganson, Victor J. Huser, David T. Jones, Lawrence Lesser, Dennis Dean Tidwell, Julie Turner,
Joseph Dean Yap.
Editors: Muzna Abbas, Naim Ahmed, Paula Albertson, Wendall Albright, Asim Ali, Jaroslaw Anders,
Mary Angelini, Nasreen Badat, Ian Brown, Ann Cody, Sarah Creedon, Alyssia Dobrescu, Kevin
Dolliver, Samuel Downing, Chrisina Droggitis, Mort Dworken, Luke Falcon-Sapp, Joshua Fellman,
Richard Figueroa, David Fros, Sheridan Gardner, David Guinn, Charles Gurney, Peter Higgins,
Victor Huser, Stephen Kaufman, Orly Keiner, Charles Kellett, Jusin Keyes, Esher Kim, Lawrence
Lesser, Henrietta Levin, Amy McGann, Andrew Masloski, Hannah Meropol, David K. Meyer, Leslie
Moorman, Daniel J. Murphy, Catherine Newling, Bintou Njie, Stephanie Ogorzalek, Molly O’Neal,
Thomas Opsal, Jon Piechowski, Steven Pierce, Jessica Rodgers, Ereni Roess, Emily Rose,
Chrisopher Russell, James Sayre, Stephanie Schmid, Daniel Schneider, Corena Sharp, Lisa
Sherman, Wendy Silverman, Rachel Spring, Greg Staf, Jennifer Stein, Anne Stotler, Denise Taylor,
Leslie Taylor, Dennis Dean Tidwell, Ambar Valles, Dan Vernon, Pilar Velasquez, David G. Wagner,
Rachel Waldsein, Meir Walters, Madeleine Wells, Alexander Werman, Lindsey Whitehead, Joseph
Dean Yap, Zainab Zaid.
Contributing Editors: Cory Andrews, Kerri Spindler-Ranta, Jonathan Collett
Technical Editor : Janine Czarnecki
Technical Coordinator : Geofrey Palcher
Appendix A
Appendix A: Notes on Preparation of the Country Reports and Explanatory
Material
Acts of Congress mandate the annual submission of the Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices. The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices cover internationally recognized civil
and political rights, including those set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as
worker rights. These include the rights not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment; to prolonged detention without charges; to disappearance or
clandesine detention; and to other violations of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person.
AR731
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
Human rights seek to incorporate respect for human dignity into the processes of government and
law. All individuals have the right to a nationality and the right to certain freedoms, such as freedoms
of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and religion, without any disinction. The right to join
a free trade union is a necessary condition of a free society and economy. Thus the reports assess
key internationally recognized worker rights, including the right of association; the right to bargain
collectively; the prohibition of forced or compulsory labor; the satus of child labor practices and the
minimum age for employment of children; discrimination with respect to employment; and
acceptable work conditions.
The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices are prepared by reviewing information available
from a wide variety of sources, including U.S. and foreign government ofcials; victims of alleged
human rights violations and abuses; academic and congressional sudies; and reports from the
press, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) concerned with
human rights. Particularly helpful for citation are NGOs, whether within a single country or those
with an international perspective.
The Country Reports cover respect for human rights in foreign countries and territories worldwide.
They do not purport to assess the human rights implications of actions taken by the U.S.
Government or its representatives.
To comply with the congressional requirement for reporting on human rights practices, the
Department provides guidance to U.S. diplomatic missions annually in July for submission of
updated texts in September and October. The Department updates these texts to the extent
possible by year’s end. A wide spectrum of concerned ofces in the Department of State provides
contributions, and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor prepares a fnal draft of
each Country Report. The U. S. Department of Labor contributes to material in section 7 on worker
rights (see Appendix B for more detail).
The Department srives to make the reports comprehensive, objective, and uniform in scope. We
seek a high sandard of consisency in the reports despite the multiplicity of sources and the
diversity of countries. For purposes of focus and sreamlining, the reports select a few illusrative
examples of alleged abuses and follow up in mos insances only on the previous year’s high-profle
unresolved cases. Starting in 2015 and continuing into 2016, the Department’s annual insructions
changed many requirements to remove reporting if no allegations of abuse were involved. An
example is a reduction in information on prison conditions considered adequate, allowing the reports
AR732
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
to increase focus on reported abuses while cutting routine descriptive detail.
For the 2017 reports, the Department made a few such changes to sharpen the focus of the reports
on violations of internationally recognized human rights and each government’s actions in regard to
such violations.
For example, in the Executive Summary of each country report we have focused on the mos
egregious types of violations of internationally recognized human rights, if applicable to the country
concerned. These include extrajudicial killing, torture, harsh and life threatening prison conditions,
egregious interference in freedoms of expression, assembly, association, and religion, as well as
bias-motivated crimes of violence and similar abuses. We have not included in the summary many
other issues that are common, such as overcrowding in prisons and societal discrimination, but
these continue to be covered in the body of the reports.
While we continue to report on societal conditions, including discrimination, that can afect the
enjoyment of internationally recognized human rights, we have sought to reduce the amount of
satisical data in each of these subsections of the report illusrating those conditions. In the age of
the internet the underlying data is readily available and we have sought to provide links to it rather
than repeat it in the text of the reports.
Evaluating the credibility of reports of human rights violations and abuses remains difcult. Mos
governments and opposition groups deny they commit human rights violations or abuses and
occasionally go to great lengths to conceal any wrongdoing. There may be few eyewitnesses to
specifc alleged violations or abuses. Frequently, eyewitnesses are intimidated or prevented from
reporting what they know. On the other hand, individuals and groups opposed to a government may
have incentive to exaggerate or fabricate abuses. In similar fashion, some governments may disort
or exaggerate abuses attributed to opposition groups. The Department seeks to identify those
groups (for example, government forces) or individuals for whom available evidence indicates
probable involvement in human rights violations or abuses or other problematic conduct.
Many governments that profess to respect human rights in principle may in fact secretly order or
tacitly condone violations or abuses. Consequently, the reports look beyond satements of policy or
intent to examine what a government actually did to protect human rights and promote
accountability, including the extent to which it invesigated, brought to trial, or punished those
responsible for any violations or abuses.
AR733
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
The Country Reports describe facts relevant to human rights concerns. Notwithsanding terms that
may be used in the reports, the reports do not sate or reach conclusions about the application of
domesic or international law to those facts.
Occasionally the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices sate that a country “generally
respected” the rights of individuals. The Department uses the phrase “generally respected” because
the protection and promotion of human rights is a dynamic endeavor. It cannot be sated with
absolute accuracy that any government fully respects these rights at all times without qualifcation,
even in the bes of circumsances. Accordingly, the reports use “generally respected” as a sandard
phrase to describe countries that attempt to protect and promote human rights in the fulles sense,
and it is thus the highes level of respect for human rights assigned by these reports.
Because the Secretary of State designates foreign groups or organizations as foreign terroris
organizations (FTOs) on the FTO lis, the reports describe as “terroriss” only those groups on the
current Department of State FTO lis.
The following notes on specifc sections in each country report provide an overview of the key
problems covered, but they are not intended to be comprehensive descriptions:
Arbitrary and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Deprivation of Life: Includes killings ordered by
governments or committed by governments without fair trial and fnal appeal guarantees, including
when there is evidence of a political motivation. This section also includes illusrative killings by
police or security forces and actions that resulted from excessive use of force or other abuses
contrary to human rights obligations and commitments, including equal protection of law.
The section generally excludes combat deaths and killings by non-sate actors such as criminals.
The reports cover deaths in detention due to adverse conditions in subsection 1.c., under Prison
and Detention Center Conditions. Killings by terroris groups, for example, are covered after
government abuses. In optional subsection 1.g., used for countries where there was signifcant
internal confict, the reports cover unlawful killings and deaths resulting from indiscriminate use of
force by government forces, those acting on the government’s behalf, or opposition forces.
Disappearance: Covers cases in which the government may be involved in the abduction,
disappearance, and refusal to account for the fate of the victims, including cases in which the
victims have not been found. Cases eventually classifed as political killings after the bodies of
missing persons are discovered would be covered in the previous section, while those eventually
AR734
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
identifed as having been arresed or held in detention may be covered in subsection 1.d., under
Arbitrary Arres or Detention.
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment : Covers torture, defned
in the Convention Agains Torture, Article 1, as “any act by which severe pain or sufering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inficted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a
third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has
committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or
for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,” and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment, committed by or at the insigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
ofcial or other person acting in an ofcial capacity. The subsection discusses reported occurrences
without analysis of whether they ft any precise defnition, and includes reported uses of physical
and other force that may fall short of torture but which may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading. This
section also may include reports of ill treatment that may not consitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, the section covers prison and detention center
conditions and deaths in such facilities due to poor conditions.
Arbitrary Arres or Detention: Includes cases in which criminal detainees are held arbitrarily in ofcial
cusody without being charged or, if charged, without being brought promptly before a judicial
authority with power to detain or without trial within a reasonable time. The section also includes
subsections on the role of the police and security apparatus, arres and detention practices outside
the criminal jusice sysem, and any amnesies that may have occurred during the year.
Denial of Fair Public Trial: Notes whether there is an independent and impartial judiciary free of
corruption or political infuence and whether trials are fair and public and aford criminal defendants
the minimum guarantees recognized internationally as necessary for a criminal defense (failure to
hold any trial is noted in the section above). The subsection Political Prisoners and Detainees
covers persons convicted, imprisoned, or detained essentially for political beliefs or nonviolent acts
of dissent or expression, particularly based on overly broad and sweeping charges intended to sife
the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The subsection Civil Procedures and
Remedies notes whether there is access to an independent and impartial court or other competent
authority to seek a remedy, whether damages for or cessation of an alleged human rights violation.
The optional subsection Property Resitution is included if there is a sysemic failure of a
government to enforce court orders with respect to resitution or compensation for the taking of
private property under domesic law. This subsection is not intended to discuss or evaluate
AR735
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
individual claims.
Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence : Includes
government punishment of family members for alleged ofenses committed by other individuals. It
includes coercive population control measures, including coerced abortion and involuntary
serilization, but it does not cover certain practices, such as female genital mutilation and early and
forced marriage, which are addressed in section 6 under women’s and children’s issues.
Abuses in Internal Conficts: This subsection applies only to countries experiencing signifcant
internal confict and describes reported abuses in such situations. It includes reports of unlawful
killings in situations of signifcant internal confict. This subsection also includes reports of abuses
agains civilians by members of the armed forces, other groups that may support the government
but may also commit abuses, or groups in political opposition to the government. Any reports of the
unlawful use of child soldiers by either government forces or by other organized armed groups are
discussed in this subsection. Also covered are reports of attacks on health-care facilities, workers,
ambulances, or patients. This subsection also includes reports concerning any resriction on
medical facilities or services in a situation of signifcant internal confict.
Freedom of Expression, Including for the Press: Evaluates whether the freedom of expression,
including of media, exiss and describes any direct or indirect undue resrictions, including
intimidation and censorship. A subsection on internet freedom includes discussion of monitoring or
resrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression online, including the freedom to seek, receive,
or impart information, ideas, and opinions. Another subsection, entitled Academic Freedom and
Cultural Events, includes information on resrictions, intimidation, and censorship in these felds.
Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association : Evaluates the ability of individuals, including with
others (through political parties) to exercise these freedoms. It considers insances of government
failure to provide permits or licenses for meetings and demonsrations, as well as information on the
ability of trade associations, professional bodies, NGOs, and similar groups to maintain relations or
afliate with recognized international bodies in their felds. Section 7, Worker Rights, discusses the
right of workers to associate, organize, and bargain collectively.
Freedom of Religion: Provides a hyperlink to the Department of State’s International Religious
Freedom Report. Information on anti-Semitism appears in section 6 under a heading by that name.
Freedom of Movement: Discusses whether and under what circumsances governments exiled
AR736
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
citizens; resricted internal and foreign travel, including for women or members of minority
populations; and revoked passports. It includes subsections on Internally Displaced Persons (if
applicable), Protection of Refugees, and Stateless Persons (if applicable). As defned in the 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, refugees are persons outside
their country of origin or, if sateless, outside their country of habitual residence, who are unable or
unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country based on a well-founded fear of
persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion. Under certain regional insruments, such as the Organization of African Unity
Convention Governing the Specifc Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, the term refugee may
also refer to persons displaced by civil srife or other forms of generalized violence. The subsection
Protection of Refugees covers abuse and discrimination agains refugees and asylum seekers. It
also reviews the government’s extension of assisance and protection to refugees, including
protection agains refoulement, the provision of temporary protection, support for voluntary
repatriation, longer-term integration opportunities, and third-country resettlement.
“Protection agains refoulement” refers to whether the government refrained from expelling or
returning a refugee in any manner to the frontiers of territories where his or her life or freedom would
be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a
particular social group, or where there are subsantial grounds for believing that an individual would
be in danger of being subjected to torture. The deportation of unsuccessful asylum seekers is not
necessarily refoulement.
The subsection on sateless persons examines whether a country has habitual residents who are
legally sateless (not recognized as nationals under the laws of any sate) or de facto sateless (not
recognized as nationals by any sate even if these individuals have a claim to nationality under the
laws of a particular sate). The report reviews whether the government has implemented efectively
laws and policies to provide such persons the opportunity to gain nationality on a nondiscriminatory
basis. The subsection examines, among other matters, whether there is violence or discrimination
agains members of resident sateless populations in employment, education, housing, health
services, marriage or birth regisration, access to courts, or the owning of property.
Freedom to Participate in the Political Process: Discusses whether the law provides citizens the
ability to choose their government in genuine free and fair periodic elections based on universal and
equal sufrage and whether in practice citizens had the freedom to participate in the conduct of
public afairs free of discrimination or unreasonable resriction. The subsection Elections and
AR737
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
Political Participation assesses whether elections were free and fair, including participation by
women and minorities on an equal basis.
Corruption and Lack of Transparency in Government: Covers allegations of corruption in the
executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government and actions taken to combat it. The
section also covers whether elected and appointed ofcials mus make fnancial disclosures.
Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Invesigation of Alleged
Violations of Human Rights: Discusses whether the government permits the free functioning of local
human rights groups (including by invesigating and allowing the publication of their fndings on
alleged human rights abuses), whether these groups are subject to reprisal by government or other
forces, and whether government ofcials are cooperative and responsive to their views. The section
also discusses whether the government grants access to and cooperates with outside entities
(including foreign human rights organizations, international organizations, and foreign governments)
interesed in human rights developments in the country. It reports on national human rights
commissions, parliamentary commissions, and relations with international human rights
organizations.
Discrimination, Societal Abuses, and Trafcking in Persons : Contains subsections on Women;
Children; Anti-Semitism; Trafcking in Persons; Persons with Disabilities; Acts of Violence,
Discrimination, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. If applicable, it
also includes subsections on National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities, Indigenous People, HIV and AIDS
Social Stigma, Other Societal Violence or Discrimination, and Promotion of Acts of Discrimination.
The section addresses discrimination and abuses not discussed elsewhere in the report, focusing
on laws, regulations, and sate practices denying or impeding equal access to employment,
education , health care, or other governmental benefts for members of specifc groups. Reluctance
to report abuse–by women, children, LGBTI persons, and members of other groups–is, of course, a
factor in the underreporting of abuses all the time, in all countries. In order to avoid being too
repetitive, we do not make this point every time we cover a particular issue, but readers should be a
aware that it is a signifcant factor in these kinds of abuses in all countries and cultures. (The
Country Reports address abuses by government or opposition forces, such as killing, torture and
other violence, or resriction of voting rights or freedom of expression targeted agains specifc
groups, under the appropriate preceding sections.)
The subsection Women discusses societal violence agains women, such as dowry deaths, “honor
killings,” domesic violence, rape, and female genital mutilation/cutting. Included is information on
AR738
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
any government tolerance of, and eforts to prevent, such practices as well as the extent to which
the women have access to equality of economic opportunity and protection from discrimination and
sexual harassment. A revised subsection changes the focus from “reproductive rights,” which
sought to cover the availability of contraceptives and maternal health issues, to cover more directly
the requirement of U.S. law that we report on coercive family planning practices, such as coerced
abortion and involuntary serilization. Our focus is on coercive government action, and we therefore
do not cover insances in which family members or partners may pressure someone to have an
abortion. However, when rebel or terroris groups impose such policies on persons, we do cover
that, jus as we cover rebel or terroris abuses in other sections of the reports, when they equate to
government actions.
The subsection Children discusses early and forced marriage and sexual exploitation of children; as
applicable, it also addresses access to education and health care, and violence or other abuse
agains children, as well as other issues.
The subsection on Anti-Semitism discusses anti-Semitic abuses. Section 2.c. on Religious Freedom
provides a hyperlink to the mos recent International Religious Freedom Report, which also contains
material on anti-Semitism.
The Trafcking in Persons subsection contains a hyperlink to the Department of State’s mos
recent Trafcking in Persons Report.
The subsection Persons with Disabilities covers discrimination agains persons with physical,
mental, or intellectual disabilities in, among other things, employment, education, and the provision
of other government services. The subsection on Acts of Violence, Discrimination, and Other
Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity notes laws criminalizing ofenses related
to homosexual satus or conduct and reports on violence and discrimination agains gay, lesbian,
bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons, as well as those with HIV/AIDS.
Notes on the preparation of section 7, Worker Rights, are contained in Appendix B.
Appendix B
Appendix B: Reporting on Worker Rights
AR739
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
U.S. law requires annual reporting to Congress on the satus of internationally recognized worker
rights in countries that are eligible to receive benefts under the Generalized Sysem of Preferences
(GSP). The law defnes internationally recognized worker rights to include: “(A) the right of
association; (B) the right to organize and bargain collectively; (C) a prohibition on the use of any
form of forced or compulsory labor; (D) a minimum age for the employment of children, and a
prohibition on wors forms of child labor; and (E) acceptable conditions of work with respect to
minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.” 19 U.S.C. § 2464, 2467. In
addition to these rights, several U.S. free trade agreements have also included the “elimination of
discrimination in respect of employment or occupation” in their defnition of internationally
recognized worker rights.
The International Labor Organization (ILO), in its 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and
Rights at Work, sets forth these principles and rights at work as follows: freedom of association and
the efective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the elimination of all forms of forced or
compulsory labor; the efective abolition of child labor; and the elimination of discrimination in
respect of employment and occupation.
Worker rights are discussed in each country report under the section heading “Worker Rights” in fve
subsections: freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining; prohibition of forced or
compulsory labor; prohibition of wors forms of child labor and minimum age for employment;
prohibition of discrimination with respect to employment and occupation; and acceptable conditions
of work. Enforcement of the law is key to efective implementation.
The discussion of worker rights considers not only laws, satutes, and regulations but also their
practical application. The discussion is informed by internationally recognized labor rights and
sandards, including the Conventions and Recommendations of the ILO, and antitrafcking
provisions in the UN Organized Crime Convention Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish
Trafcking in Persons. Some specifc guidelines derived from these are discussed below.
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND THE RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING:
“Freedom of association” includes the right of workers and employers to esablish and join
organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization; to draw up their own
consitutions and rules, to elect their representatives, and to formulate their programs; to join in
confederations and afliate with international organizations; and to be protected agains dissolution
or suspension by adminisrative authority.
AR740
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
“The right to organize and bargain collectively” includes the right of workers to be represented in
negotiating terms and conditions of employment and the prevention and settlement of disputes with
employers, the right to protection agains interference by the government or employers, and the
right to protection agains acts of antiunion discrimination. Governments should promote
mechanisms for voluntary negotiations between employers and workers and their organizations.
Coverage of the right to organize and bargain collectively includes a review of the extent to which
collective bargaining takes place and the extent to which workers, both in law and practice, are
protected agains antiunion discrimination.
The section of each report on freedom of association also covers the right to srike. While it is
generally accepted for srikes to be resricted in the public sector and in essential services, the
interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety, or health of a signifcant portion of the
population, these resrictions need to be ofset by adequate safeguards for the interess of the
workers concerned (for example, mechanisms for mediation and arbitration, due process, and the
right to judicial review of legal actions). Reporting on resrictions on the ability of workers to srike
generally includes information on any procedures that may exis for safeguarding workers’ interess.
FORCED LABOR:
“Forced or compulsory labor” is defned as work or service exacted under the menace of penalty
and for which a person has not volunteered. This defnition does not include “work or service” where
obligations to work or serve are imposed in order to receive education or training. “Menace of
penalty” includes loss of rights or privileges as well as penal sanctions. The ILO exempts
compulsory military service, normal civic obligations, emergencies, and minor communal services
from its defnition of forced labor. The ILO has also exempted certain forms of prison labor, but only
to the extent that such labor is exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law and
carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority, and provided that the prisoner is
not hired out to or placed at the disposal of private entities. The ILO further notes that consitutional
provisions concerning the obligation of citizens to work do not violate this right so long as they do
not take the form of legal obligations enforced by sanctions and are consisent with the principle of
“freely chosen employment.”
U.S. law defnes forced labor as knowingly providing or obtaining the labor or services of a person
by force or threats of force, serious harm or threats of serious harm to that person or another
person, abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process, or any scheme, plan, or pattern intended
AR741
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
to cause the person to believe that, if that person did not perform such labor or services, that person
or another person would sufer serious harm or physical resraint. The UN Trafcking Protocol also
addresses forced labor, by requiring sate parties to criminalize the recruitment, transport, transfer,
receipt, or harboring of a person for the purpose of forced labor or services extracted through
coercive or fraudulent means.
CHILD LABOR:
“A minimum age for employment” is related to the efective abolition of child labor because it
requires a minimum age for employment that is consisent with the fulles physical and mental
development of young people. The “prohibition on the wors forms of child labor” looks to ILO
Convention 182, which defnes anyone under the age of 18 as a child, and specifes certain types of
employment as “the wors forms of child labor.” These wors forms of labor include slavery, debt
bondage, forced labor, forced recruitment into armed confict, child prositution and pornography,
involvement in illicit activity such as drug production or trafcking, and work that, “by its nature or the
circumsances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.”
DISCRIMINATION WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT AND OCCUPATION:
“Discrimination with respect to employment and occupation” may be direct or indirect. Direct
discrimination exiss when laws, rules, or practices explicitly cite a particular ground (such as sex,
race, religion, political opinion, national or social origin, etc.) to deny equal opportunities for
employment or vocational training, as well as any other ground for disinction determined to impair
equal opportunity. The ILO has noted that indirect discrimination occurs where rules or practices
appear on the surface to be neutral but in practice lead to unwarranted exclusions. For example,
requiring applicants to be a certain height could disproportionately exclude women and members of
some ethnic groups. Unless the specifed height is necessary to perform the particular job, this
could illusrate indirect discrimination.
U.S. law prohibits discrimination in respect to employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, disability, genetic information, or age. Many sates and municipalities also have
enacted protections agains discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, satus as a
parent, marital satus, and political afliation.
ACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS OF WORK:
AR742
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
“Acceptable conditions of work” refers to the esablishment and maintenance of appropriate
mechanisms, adapted to national conditions, that provide for minimum working sandards, namely:
wages that provide a decent living for workers and their families; working hours that do not exceed
48 hours per week, with a full 24-hour day of res; a specifed number of annual paid leave days;
and minimum conditions for the protection of the safety and health of workers. National laws should
specify whether workers in the informal sector are covered, and whether or not any other group of
workers or sectors of the economy are excluded.
Appendix C
Appendix C: Additional Resources
See below for resources on issues noted in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
Reference does not indicate endorsement by the U.S. Department of State.
WOMEN
UN Interagency on Women and Gender Equality: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/
UN Population
Fund: http://www.unfpa.org/gender/index.htm and www.unfpa.org/sites/default/fles/resource-
pdf/Preventing_gender-biased_sex_selection.pdf
Secretary’s Ofce of Global Women’s Issues, U. S. Department of State: http://www.sate.gov/s/gwi
UNICEF: http://www.childinfo.org/fgmc_progress.html and https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-
protection/female-genital-mutilation-and-cutting/
Population Reference Bureau: http://www.prb.org/pdf14/fgm-wallchart2014.pdf
World Health
Organization http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/index.html and http://ww
w.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/monitoring/maternal-mortality-2015/en/
Population Council: https://www.popcouncil.org/uploads/pdfs/SOTA_Synthesis_2016_FINAL.pdf
AR743
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
CIA: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/
2015-16 Demographic and Health Survey: dhsprogram.com/Where-We-Work/
CHILDREN
UNICEF: http://www.unicef.org/,
https://www.unicef.org/sowc04/sowc04_contents.html and http://mics.unicef.org/
World Health Organization: https://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/child/en/
UN Special Representative for Children and Armed Confict: https://childrenandarmedconfict.un.org/
WATCHLIST ON CHILDREN AND ARMED CHILDREN: http://www.watchlis.org/
2015-16 Demographic and Health Survey: dhsprogram.com/Where-We-Work/
ANTI-SEMITISM
Ofce of Religion and Global Afairs: https://www.sate.gov/s/rga/resources/267538.htm
TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
Ofce to Monitor and Combat Trafcking in Persons, State Department: http://www.sate.gov/j/tip
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Disabled Peoples’ International: http://www.dpi.org/
Disability Rights Promotion International: http://www.yorku.ca/drpi/
Adminisration and Cos of Elections Project: http://www.aceproject.org/focuson/disability/index.htm
IFES – Democracy at Large: http://www.ifes.org/global-project.html?projectid=disabilitiesprograms
Ideanet International Disability Rights Monitor: http://idrmnet.org/
Disability Rights International: https://www.driadvocacy.org/
AR744
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
Mobility International USA: http://www.miusa.org
National Human Rights Insitutions Forum: http://www.nhri.net/
United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/CRPDIndex.aspx
United Nations Enable: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/
NATIONAL/RACIAL/ETHNIC MINORITIES
European Roma Human Rights Center: http://www.errc.org/
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
UN Ofce of the High Commissioner on Human Rights’ section on Indigenous
Rights: http://www.unhchr.ch/indigenous/main.html
ACTS OF VIOLENCE, DISCRIMINATION, AND OTHER ABUSES BASED ON SEXUAL
ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY
Amnesy International: https://www.amnesyusa.org/issues/gender-sexuality-identity/
Council for Global Equality: www.GlobalEquality.org
Global Rights: http://www.globalrights.org/
Human Rights Firs: www.humanrightsfrs.org/discrimination/pages.aspx?id=157
Human Rights Watch: www.hrw.org/en/category/topic/lgbt-rights
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission: www.IGLHRC.org
International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA): www.ilga.org
International Lesbian and Gay Association – Europe (ILGA-EUROPE): www.ilga-europe.org
Mulabi (covering Latin America): www.mulabi.org
AR745
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
Yogyakarta Principles: www.yogyakartaprinciples.org
HIV AND AIDS SOCIAL STIGMA
UNAIDS: http://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries
Stigma Index: http://www.sigmaindex.org/
Appendix D
Appendix D: FY 2017 Foreign Assisance Actuals
Appendix D FY 2017 Foreign Assisance Actuals
Appendix E
Appendix E: UN General Assembly's Third Committee Country Resolution
Votes 2017
Appendix E UN General Assembly’s Third Committee Country Resolution Votes 2017
Appendix F
Appendix F: United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, jusice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy
freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highes
aspiration of the common people,
AR746
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a las resort, to rebellion
agains tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reafrmed their faith in fundamental
human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and
women and have determined to promote social progress and better sandards of life in larger
freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United
Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms,
Whereas a common undersanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greates importance for
the full realization of this pledge,
Now, therefore,
The General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common
sandard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every
organ of society, keeping this Declaration consantly in mind, shall srive by teaching and education
to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and
international, to secure their universal and efective recognition and observance, both among the
peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
ARTICLE 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
ARTICLE 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without disinction of
any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth or other satus. Furthermore, no disinction shall be made on the basis of the
political, jurisdictional or international satus of the country or territory to which a person belongs,
AR747
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
whether it be independent, trus, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
ARTICLE 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.
ARTICLE 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all
their forms.
ARTICLE 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
ARTICLE 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
ARTICLE 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the
law. All are entitled to equal protection agains any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and
agains any incitement to such discrimination.
ARTICLE 8
Everyone has the right to an efective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating
the fundamental rights granted him by the consitution or by law.
ARTICLE 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arres, detention or exile.
ARTICLE 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge agains him.
AR748
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
ARTICLE 11
Everyone charged with a penal ofence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
No one shall be held guilty of any penal ofence on account of any act or omission which did not
consitute a penal ofence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed.
Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal
ofence was committed.
ARTICLE 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence,
nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law
agains such interference or attacks.
ARTICLE 13
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each sate.
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
ARTICLE 14
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political
crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
ARTICLE 15
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor be denied the right to change his
nationality.
ARTICLE 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the
right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during
marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
AR749
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by
society and the State.
ARTICLE 17
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
ARTICLE 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to
change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifes his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
ARTICLE 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers.
ARTICLE 20
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
ARTICLE 21
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely
chosen representatives.
Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in
periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal sufrage and shall be held
by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
ARTICLE 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization,
through national efort and international cooperation and in accordance with the organization and
resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and
AR750
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
the free development of his personality.
ARTICLE 23
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to jus and favourable conditions of
work and to protection agains unemployment.
Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Everyone who works has the right to jus and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his
family an exisence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of
social protection.
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interess.
ARTICLE 24
Everyone has the right to res and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and
periodic holidays with pay.
ARTICLE 25
Everyone has the right to a sandard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself
and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social
services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood,
old age or other lack of livelihood in circumsances beyond his control.
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assisance. All children, whether born
in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
ARTICLE 26
Everyone has the right to education.
Education shall be free, at leas in the elementary and fundamental sages.
Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made
generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the
srengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote
undersanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall
further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
AR751
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
ARTICLE 27
Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts
and to share in scientifc advancement and its benefts.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interess resulting from any
scientifc, literary or artisic production of which he is the author.
ARTICLE 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in
this Declaration can be fully realized.
ARTICLE 29
Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his
personality is possible.
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as
are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights
and freedoms of others and of meeting the jus requirements of morality, public order and the
general welfare in a democratic society.
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles
of the United Nations.
ARTICLE 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right
to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the desruction of any of the rights and
freedoms set forth herein.
________________________________________
Hundred and eighty-third plenary meeting
Resolution 217(A)(III) of the United Nations General Assembly,
December 10, 1948
AR752
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
Appendix G
Appendix G: Errata
The following are changes to text of individual country reports since publication April 20, 2018.
Finland
In Section 6, Indigenous People, corrected an editing error.
Guatemala
In Section 1.d., corrected factual errors in the section on “Arres Procedures and Treatment of
Detainees” to clarify that, “After arraigning suspects, the prosecutor generally has three months to
complete the invesigation if the defendant is in pre-trial detentions, and six months to complete the
invesigation if the defendant is granted house arres.” Also added language to clarify that, “The law
esablishes a one-year maximum for pretrial detention, regardless of the sage of the criminal
proceeding, but the court has the legal authority to extend pre-trial detention without limits as
necessary.”
Tunisia
In Section 2.a. corrected editing errors.
Wesern Sahara
In Section 2.b. corrected the name of an organization.
TAGS
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Human Rights Report
AR753
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
Related Articles
JULY 18, 2019
Statement on China
READ MORE
JULY 18, 2019
Statement on Respect for Religion or Belief
READ MORE
JULY 18, 2019
Statement on Iran
READ MORE
AR754
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - United States Department of State
White House
USA.gov
Ofce of the Inspector General
Archives
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Accessibility Statement
Copyright Information
FOIA
No FEAR Act
Website Feedback
AR755
https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/[7/18/2019 5:49:34 PM]
‘They Were Abusing Us the Whole Way’: A Tough Path for Gay and Trans Migrants - The New York Times
LOG IN
ADVERTISEMENT
‘They Were Abusing Us the Whole
Way’: A Tough Path for Gay and
Trans Migrants
AR756
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/us/lgbt-migrants-abuse.html[7/18/2019 5:51:21 PM]
‘They Were Abusing Us the Whole Way’: A Tough Path for Gay and Trans Migrants - The New York Times
Jade Quintanilla, a transgender woman from El Salvador, says she was robbed, exploited and
abused on the trip to seek asylum in the United States. Kayla Reefer for The New York Times
By Jose A. Del Real
July 11, 2018
TIJUANA, Mexico — Jade Quintanilla had come to the northernmost edge
of Mexico from El Salvador looking for help and safety, but five months had
passed since she had arrived in this border town, and she was still too
scared to cross into the United States and make her request for asylum.
Violence and persecution in Central America had brought many
transgender women such as Ms. Quintanilla to this crossroads, along with
AR757
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/us/lgbt-migrants-abuse.html[7/18/2019 5:51:21 PM]
‘They Were Abusing Us the Whole Way’: A Tough Path for Gay and Trans Migrants - The New York Times
countless other L.G.B.T. migrants. They are desperate to escape an
unstable region where they are distinct targets.
Friends in San Salvador, Ms. Quintanilla said, were killed outright or
humiliated in myriad ways: They were forced to cut their long hair and live
as men; they were beaten; they were coerced into sex work; they were
threatened into servitude as drug mules and gun traffickers.
Still, just a few miles from the border, Ms. Quintanilla, 22, hesitated. “I’ve
gone up to the border many times and turned back,” she said in a bare
concrete room at the group home where she was living, holding her thin
arms at the elbows. “What if they ask, ‘Why would we accept a person like
you in our country?’ I think about that a lot. It would be like putting a bullet
to my head, if I arrive and they say no.”
While the Trump administration has tightened regulations on asylum
qualifications related to gang violence and domestic abuse, migrants still
can request asylum on the basis of persecution for their L.G.B.T. identity.
But their chances of success are far from certain, and the journey to even
reach the American border is especially risky for L.G.B.T. migrants.
Trans women in particular encounter persistent abuse and harassment in
Mexico at the hands of drug traffickers, rogue immigration agents and
other migrants, according to lawyers and activists. Once they reach the
United States, they regularly face hardship, as well.
There are no numbers available disclosing how many L.G.B.T. migrants
seek asylum at the border each year or their success rate, but lawyers and
activists say that the number of gay, lesbian and trans people seeking
asylum each year is at least in the hundreds.
In weighing whether to risk the journey north, many L.G.B.T. migrants
from Central America gamble that the road ahead cannot be worse than
what they are leaving behind.
AR758
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/us/lgbt-migrants-abuse.html[7/18/2019 5:51:21 PM]
‘They Were Abusing Us the Whole Way’: A Tough Path for Gay and Trans Migrants - The New York Times
Victor Clark-Alfaro, an immigration expert at San Diego State University
who is based in Tijuana, said that he has noticed more openly L.G.B.T.
people in recent years making the journey to the border with hopes of
seeking asylum. He said they are often the victims of powerful criminal
gangs in Central America and Mexico — but also of bigoted neighbors,
police officers and strangers.
“The ones who can’t hide their sexuality and gender, there’s a huge
aggression toward them. And of them, trans women are the ones who are
most heavily targeted,” Mr. Clark-Alfaro said. In Central America and
Mexico, “almost everyone is Catholic, and so the machismo and religious
sensibilities provoke attacks against people who break gender norms.”
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an arm of the
Organization of American States, has spoken out against the high rates of
violence against L.G.B.T. people in Central American countries and Mexico
and has noted that the crimes against them are often committed with
impunity.
AR759
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/us/lgbt-migrants-abuse.html[7/18/2019 5:51:21 PM]
‘They Were Abusing Us the Whole Way’: A Tough Path for Gay and Trans Migrants - The New York Times
A Frida Kahlo mural inside Jardin de las Mariposas, an L.G.B.T.-focused drug rehabilitation
home in Tijuana, Mexico, that has hosted dozens of Central American migrants in recent
months.
Kayla Reefer for The New York Times
Shortly after Ms. Quintanilla and two friends began their journey north to
Tijuana from Tapachula, in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas, in
January, they were robbed. With no more money, they walked along the
highway for long stretches of time in between rides, about 13 days
altogether, Ms. Quintanilla said.
In Veracruz, the group boarded the so-called Beast, a train in Mexico often
used by migrants to travel north; there, she said, she was sexually
exploited.
“They say you can ride on top of the train,” Ms. Quintanilla said. “But the
reality is different. We had to give our services so that they’d let us on. They
were abusing us the whole way through. And if we refused, they’d threaten
to push us off.”
She reached Tijuana in February and was taken in by Jardin de las
Mariposas, an L.G.B.T.-focused drug rehabilitation home that has hosted
dozens of Central American migrants in recent months. The director of the
Mariposas, Yolanda Rocha, with whom Ms. Quintanilla has spoken about
the journey, vouched for the account Ms. Quintanilla shared with The New
York Times. She said that Ms. Quintanilla had appeared traumatized and
exhausted when she arrived at Mariposas.
Warnings about trans migrants being neglected and abused in United
States custody have amplified fears for Ms. Quintanilla and other trans
migrants. A 2016 report by Human Rights Watch detailed pervasive sexual
harassment and assault at detention facilities, based on interviews with
dozens of transgender women.
In May, a transgender woman named Roxana Hernandez died in New
Mexico, while held in custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs
AR760
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/us/lgbt-migrants-abuse.html[7/18/2019 5:51:21 PM]
‘They Were Abusing Us the Whole Way’: A Tough Path for Gay and Trans Migrants - The New York Times
Enforcement, after experiencing cardiac arrest and H.I.V.-related
complications.
In interviews with The Times, several trans women described humiliation
by guards and said they had been sexually assaulted by other detainees.
Seventy-two migrants who identify as transgender were being held in
custody by ICE as of June 30, according to data provided by the agency.
The vast majority are from Central America and Mexico. It is difficult to
pinpoint how many L.G.B.T. people might be in detention because they
often choose not to disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity, for
fear of discrimination, even though it could help their asylum case.
“A lot of the queer men experience threats and physical assault and
sometimes sexual assault. The trans women who are put into men’s
facilities experience sexual assault at remarkably high numbers,” said
Aaron Morris, a lawyer and the executive director of Immigration Equality,
which provides legal assistance related to immigration and asylum to
L.G.B.T. people.
ICE operates a housing unit specifically for transgender detainees at the
Cibola County Correctional Center in New Mexico. Activists say that the
center is far better than others, where trans women are held alongside men.
But many trans women are reluctant to relocate to the Cibola center, Mr.
Morris said, if it is far away from their lawyers or networks of family
members.
Reports of abuse at detention centers range from guards making fun of
natural facial hair that grows in between grooming to other inmates
threatening violence. Of 237 allegations of sexual abuse or assault filed by
ICE detainees in 2017, the agency’s records show that 11 were filed by
transgender people.
In some cases, migrants say they are not taken seriously when they report
attacks.
AR761
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/us/lgbt-migrants-abuse.html[7/18/2019 5:51:21 PM]
‘They Were Abusing Us the Whole Way’: A Tough Path for Gay and Trans Migrants - The New York Times
One trans woman from Honduras said she had been harassed and sexually
assaulted several times by men while in custody at the Otay Mesa
Detention Center in San Diego, which is operated by CoreCivic. The woman
requested anonymity because her asylum request is currently under review.
A Pride Flag covered the main entrance of the shelter in
Tijuana. Kayla Reefer for The New York Times
Speaking in an interview with her lawyer present in Los Angeles, she
described several safety issues that stem from the center grouping trans
women with men and having them share bathrooms. At one point, she said,
she awoke to a man forcing himself onto her and shoving his tongue into
her mouth; she said she was told to ignore it by the guards, even though she
was afraid that she would get in trouble because of rules against physical
contact.
In other instances, she said, men would pull back the curtains in the
shower to masturbate in front of her and other trans women.
AR762
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/us/lgbt-migrants-abuse.html[7/18/2019 5:51:21 PM]
‘They Were Abusing Us the Whole Way’: A Tough Path for Gay and Trans Migrants - The New York Times
“They say we have support and protection in there, but the reality is
different,” the woman said. “I’m not the only one. Ask any trans woman,
they will each have a bad story about something that happened to them in
detention.”
In a statement, ICE spokeswoman Danielle Bennett said that the agency
has “zero tolerance for all forms of sexual abuse or assault” and that it
investigates every allegation reported.
Activists have demanded that the government avoid holding trans women
and other L.G.B.T. migrants in detention altogether. Just over half of trans
people are held at the specialized unit at the Cibola center, the ICE
spokeswoman said, whereas the dozens spread across other facilities are
“housed in units at the facility based on their physical gender.”
The Honduran woman said she was disappointed to find the guards at the
center where she was held to be so dismissive. In her hometown, she said,
she had been viciously attacked by a man who struck her with a machete.
She never reported the crime, though he had targeted her several times
before, she said. “In Honduras, it’s better not to go to the police, because
that just makes it worse. If they don’t kill me, they’ll kill one of my family
members.”
Raiza Daniela Aparicio Hernandez, 33, a transgender human-rights activist
from El Salvador, said she was physically assaulted in 2016 by four police
officers in her home in San Salvador, which she shared with her boyfriend.
The officers had harassed and threatened her before, arriving at their home
without a warrant and demanding to be let in, before barging in and
assaulting them. “They beat me. They beat me a long time,” she said.
Ms. Aparicio Hernandez and her partner tried to file a formal complaint
about the abuse in El Salvador she said, but they ran into obstacles along
the way. She left El Salvador in June 2017 and arrived at the San Ysidro
point of entry, on the border between Tijuana and San Diego, to request
asylum.
AR763
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/us/lgbt-migrants-abuse.html[7/18/2019 5:51:21 PM]
‘They Were Abusing Us the Whole Way’: A Tough Path for Gay and Trans Migrants - The New York Times
Before speaking to The Times, Ms. Aparacio Hernandez shared her account
with her lawyer. She won asylum through the courts on the merits of her
case.
“Leaving my country was such a hard decision,” she said. “I’ve seen a lot of
friends die in this fight, at the hands of the government, and people being
beat and tortured. And this is happening at the hands of police officers. It’s
sad, and it’s difficult, but you have to fight.”
Marcos Williamson, the detention relief coordinator for Transcend Arizona,
a Phoenix-based nonprofit group that helps L.G.B.T. migrants, said asylum
seekers who are released from detention on bond often struggle to make
ends meet because they are given neither benefits nor work permits.
L.G.B.T. people, who often do not have the support of family members, are
particularly alone.
For now, Ms. Quintanilla feels safe at Mariposas, though she has been
accosted on the streets of Tijuana and harassed, she said. She is grateful to
the center for taking her in. And she is not yet ready for what comes next in
her long journey.
“I decided to leave because I didn’t want to die. It would just be too much
for them to reject me,” she said. “What good would it have been to flee my
country?”
AR764
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/us/lgbt-migrants-abuse.html[7/18/2019 5:51:21 PM]
‘They Were Abusing Us the Whole Way’: A Tough Path for Gay and Trans Migrants - The New York Times
Ms. Quintanilla, standing on the roof of Jardin de las Mariposas. Kayla Reefer for The New York Times
A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 12 of the New York edition with the headline: For
Some Migrants, North Is No Refuge. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
Related Coverage
July 9, 2018 Judge Rejects Long Detentions of Migrant
Families, Dealing Trump Another Setback
June 30, 2018 What It Costs to Be Smuggled Across the
U.S. Border
ADVERTISEMENT
Go to Home Page »
AR765
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/us/lgbt-migrants-abuse.html[7/18/2019 5:51:21 PM]
‘They Were Abusing Us the Whole Way’: A Tough Path for Gay and Trans Migrants - The New York Times
NEWS
OPINION
ARTS
LIVING
LISTINGS & MORE
© 2019 The New York Times Company
Contact Us Work with us Advertise Your Ad Choices Privacy Terms of Service Terms of Sale Site Map Help Subscriptions
AR766
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/us/lgbt-migrants-abuse.html[7/18/2019 5:51:21 PM]
More Migrants Are Crossing the Border This
Year. What’s Changed?
In the past, undocumented immigrants were mostly single men from Mexico, but that’s no
longer the case. A look at who is coming and what is driving them.
By Miriam Jordan
March 5, 2019
New York Times
President Trump has tried to halt the arrival of undocumented migrants by beefing up border
security, limiting who qualifies for asylum and, for a while, separating migrant children from
their parents at the border. However, figures released on Tuesday suggest that those measures are
failing to deter tens of thousands of migrants from journeying over land to the United States.
Indeed, after shriveling to the smallest total in five decades, the number of migrants intercepted
at the southern border — the best indicator of how many undocumented people are entering the
United States — is soaring again.
Border authorities detained nearly twice as many migrants — 268,044 — in the first five months
of the fiscal year that started in October than were detained in the same period the previous year.
To understand what’s happening, it’s important to look at who is coming, what is driving them
and how the answers to those questions have changed over the years.
It used to be about Mexico. But no more.
In the past, undocumented immigrants were overwhelmingly single men from Mexico who
slipped into the country undetected to find work and send money home. But immigration from
Mexico has plummeted in recent years. In fact, more Mexicans are leaving than arriving in the
United States. Mexicans are less compelled to come because there are more opportunities in their
own country and they have smaller families to support.
Central American families have become the new face of undocumented immigration.
In the first five months of the fiscal year that began in October, the Border Patrol detained
136,150 people traveling in families with children, compared with 107,212 during all of fiscal
2018.
A trend toward family migration from Central America that began when Barack Obama was
president has endured, after temporarily dipping during Mr. Trump’s first year in office.
AR767
Poverty is driving much of the latest migration
Many Central Americans live in fear. El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala have among the
world’s highest homicide rates. Arriving migrants report that they have faced extortion, and want
to prevent their children from being recruited by street gangs.
But murder rates in the Northern Triangle countries have been declining in recent years, and
economic imperatives are believed to be the most important push factor for the majority of recent
arrivals.
More than 90 percent of the most recent migrants are from Guatemala, according to the newly
released data. The majority hail from impoverished regions, including the Western highlands,
where conflicts over land rights, environmental changes and depressed prices for crops like
maize and coffee are undermining the ability of farmers to make a living.
Traveling with children is helping migrants avoid detention
Migrants generally lack understanding of United States immigration law. But they appear to be
informed about the basics.
The majority know to request asylum at the border, either at an official port of entry or when
they surrender to border agents shortly after sneaking into the country from Mexico.
They know that they are unlikely to remain detained if they travel with a child and that they have
a better shot at fending off deportation when they come with a child.
By law, the government cannot keep migrant families in holding facilities at the border for more
than 72 hours. It must either transfer them to an immigration detention facility suitable for
children or release them.
The government has been letting thousands of detained migrants go free each week because it
lacks enough beds to hold them in family detention facilities. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement’s three residential family centers — two in southern Texas and one in Pennsylvania
— can accommodate 3,326 parents and children.
The largest share of migrants arrive in Texas, but there appears to be a growing number who are
entering through remote areas of Arizona and New Mexico.
Zero tolerance didn’t work
In the spring of 2018, the Trump administration tried to discourage parents from traveling with a
child by prosecuting everyone who crossed the border illegally, even those who were traveling
with children — a policy known as zero tolerance. This resulted in children being removed from
their parents and placed in shelters across the country.
The policy drew widespread condemnation, prompting the president to halt the practice in late
June. But Customs and Border Protection officials believe that the various legal rulings
preventing families from being detained have helped solidify the message to smugglers, who
AR768
roam villages offering to guide people to the United States, that adults who come with a child are
protected from deportation.
It’s not that easy to get asylum, though
Whether they sneak into the country in remote areas or enter the country through a port of
entry, most migrants are trying to petition for asylum.
In 2008, just under 5,000 applicants claimed they had a credible fear of persecution, the first
legal step toward obtaining asylum, to avoid being returned to their homeland. Last year, nearly
100,000 claimed a credible fear.
The Trump administration contends that people are flooding the asylum system with invalid
claims.
In recent years, immigration judges have granted less than 20 percent of asylum requests, a
proportion that is even lower for Central Americans.
Many asylum seekers from Central America claim they have been victims of gangs, which is
harder to prove than political and other types of persecution. Poverty is not among the grounds
for receiving asylum.
If they are denied, asylum seekers can be deported. But since many are released while their case
is pending, some never return to court and evade deportation.
AR769
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
ADJUDICATION STATISTICS
Credible Fear and Asylum Process:
Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 – FY 2019 Quarter 2
Out of 100 aliens who were to claim a credible fear…1
OPTION FOR EOIR TO REVIEW A NEGATIVE FEAR FINDING
CREDIBLE FEAR INTERVIEW 7 cases are closed3
United States Citizenship and 3 credible fear claimants would not request review by Alien Is
Immigration Services (USCIS) an immigration judge (IJ)
Removed
would refer 81 credible fear
claimants to EOIR 9 credible fear claimants
(81% of claims referred to EOIR)2 would request review by an IJ
CREDIBLE FEAR REVIEW (CFR)4
IJs would find credible fear for
2 credible fear claimants
(IJs find credible fear in 21% of CFRs)
REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
EOIR would receive and
complete 83 I-862 cases5 … only 14 out of 100 would be granted asylum.
originating from credible
fear claims
Never Referred
to EOIR
Referred, but
ASYLUM APPLICATION Never Filed Asylum
44 credible fear claimants
would file for asylum
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (24 ordered
removed in
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
(Of completed I-862 cases originating from a
credible fear claim made to USCIS, 53 percent of absentia)
aliens filed for asylum)
? ? ? ? ? ?
Referred & Filed,
but Not Granted (4
ASYLUM DECISION ordered removed in
IJs would grant asylum to only absentia)
14 credible fear claimants and
would not grant asylum to 30
credible fear claimants ? ? ? ? Referred, Filed, &
(Of completed I-862 cases originating from a Granted Asylum
credible fear claim made to USCIS, IJs grant
asylum 17 percent of the time)
EOIR Data Generated: April 23, 2019 withdrawn or an alien is found to be ineligible for the credible fear
1 Percentages used in assessing this population may change as more process.
cases are completed over time and because some cases may be 4 If USCIS finds that an alien has not established a credible fear, the
reopened. alien may request review of that finding by an IJ. If the IJ finds that an
2 Based on USCIS data (generated April 26, 2019). Includes claims alien has established a credible fear, then the alien (unless the alien
referred to EOIR in which USCIS did not make a credible fear finding is a stowaway) is placed in removal proceedings. AR770
because it could not obtain an interpreter. 5 Includes completed removal, exclusion, and deportation case types.
3 Closed cases include those in which a claim is dissolved or
SAFE THIRD COUNTRIES FOR ASYLUM-SEEKERS
Why Mexico Does Not Qualify as a Safe Third Country
It has been argued that refugees or asylum-seekers passing through Mexico to request asylum in the United States should be
denied entry to the U.S. based on the availability of protection in Mexico as a signatory to the 1951 Convention on the Status
of Refugees (“1951 Convention” or “Refugee Convention”). In some cases, this is referred to a “safe third country” option. The
term “safe third country” applies to countries determined as being non-refugee-producing or as being places where refugees
can receive asylum without any danger.1 Following this concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be denied entry or returned to
countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized. Despite important
steps taken by Mexico in recent years to strengthen its asylum system, the system is still squarely within the development phase
and has extremely limited resources and capacity (it currently processes a small fraction of the asylum applications received by
the U.S.). Mexico is clearly not a safe, or in many cases viable, alternative for many refugees and vulnerable migrants seeking
international protection.
Part I. “Safe third country” concept in international refugee law
The right to seek asylum is well-established in international law, under the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
the binding 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. The latter establishes who qualifies as a refugee, the rights of persons
recognized as refugees or granted asylum, and the obligations of States towards these persons. The U.S. acceded to the 1967
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which modified the 1951 Convention by removing the temporal and geographic
limits (originally it was restricted to those persons who fled, within Europe, prior to January 1, 1951).
The position of the UNHCR – the UN entity in charge of supervising the application of the 1951 and 1967 instruments – is that
“burden-sharing” arrangements allowing for readmission and determination of status elsewhere, such as the safe third country
principle, are reasonable, provided they always ensure protection of refugees first and foremost.2 This means that refugees,
asylum-seekers, and other persons forcibly displaced from their homes must be safe in the third country from being removed to
their home country (the non-refoulement principle), and that they must have access to basic social services in this third country,
such as healthcare, education, and employment.
There are numerous ways this “safe third country” concept could be implemented, some of which are legal and some not.
Part II. Origin of the “safe third country” concept in U.S. immigration law
One way this concept could be implemented is through a bar on certain asylum applications. The Illegal Immigration Reform and
Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 amended section 208 (a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) to bar asylum to
those aliens who can be returned to a “safe-third country.”
In order to invoke this bar, however, the INA requires the U.S. to have a “bilateral or multilateral agreement” in place with the third
country.3
The U.S. only has one safe third country agreement in place, with Canada, which entered force in 2004. One important exception
embedded in the U.S.-Canada agreement regards family reunification. Family unity is a fundamental principle of international
law and is enshrined not only in the Refugee Convention but also in several other international legal instruments, such as the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, and the American Convention on Human Rights, among
others.
1 Not to be confused with the ‘first country of asylum’ principle, which is used to justify the decision to return an asylum-seeker to another country where s/he
has already been granted protection.
2 UNHCR, Background Note on the Safe Country Concept and Refugee Status, EC/SCP/68, July 26, 1991.
3 Section 608 of IIRIRA amended the INA as follows:
INA §208 (a)(2)(A) SAFE THIRD COUNTRY.-Paragraph (1) [stating that any alien physically present in the United States or who arrives
in the United States, irrespective of status, may apply for asylum in accordance with the provisions of § 208] shall not apply to an
alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a
country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s
last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for
determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest
for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.
1 AR771
SAFE THIRD COUNTRIES FOR ASYLUM-SEEKERS
The U.S.-Canada agreement provides that an asylum-seeker with a family member in the destination country, who is either in
lawful immigration status or is 18 years or older and has an asylum application pending, will be allowed to enter that country
(whether it be the U.S. or Canada) to join this relative. The range of eligible family members under the agreement includes spous-
es, sons, daughters, parents, legal guardians, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews.4
The U.S. does not currently have a formal agreement with Mexico but may choose to pursue one. If they do, it is essential to
remember that:
●● Mexico is not a safe option for many migrants.
●● Family ties and reunification are a major factor driving current migrant and refugee flows. Many child migrants, particularly
unaccompanied children, are traveling through Mexico to reach the United States, where other family members are
located. Including an exception for family reunification in any such agreement would be essential to protecting children’s
rights and the right to family life.
●● Mexico’s asylum system is still evolving and a large increase in the already overburdened asylum system is likely to cause
further instability and delay or prevent the consolidation of an effective protection system.
Part III. Mexico is not a safe third country
A. Mexico is not safe for most migrants, particularly vulnerable ones
While Mexico has made commitments to strengthen its capacity to provide asylum to Central Americans, particularly those
coming from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, it has yet to make demonstrable progress
in screening individuals for protection needs and ceasing to return families and children to danger. Significant barriers prevent
migrants, including children, from accessing the right to seek and enjoy asylum in Mexico:
●● Many migrants are arbitrarily detained in poor conditions in processing facilities upon apprehension. In these facilities,
migrants lack access to legal counsel and opportunities to have their cases heard. Child migrants are being systematically
detained, which violates their basic human rights. Between 2014 and 2015, the number of detained unaccompanied
children migrants in Mexico doubled, from 10,943 to 20,368.5 Particularly for children, the length and conditions of
detention deter them from seeking asylum.6
●● Adult and child migrants in need of international protection are not routinely informed about their rights or screened for
international protection concerns as is required by Mexican law.7 This is especially concerning as persons only have thirty
business days upon entering Mexican territory to file an asylum application. Further, Mexico’s Commission for Refugee
Assistance (or COMAR, by its initials in Spanish) is understaffed, having only 15 agents as of June 2015, to conduct asylum
interviews throughout the entire country;8 under resourced,9 in comparison to the large increase in asylum applications
over the past few years10; and limited geographically, as it only has three offices - Tapachula (Chiapas), Acayucan
(Veracuz), and Mexico City.11
4 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Press Release: United States and Canada Implement Safe Third
Country Agreement on Asylum (Dec. 29, 2004), p. 2.
5 José Antonio Román, “Se duplicó la detención de menores centroamericanos no acompañados” [Detention of unaccompanied children from Central America
doubled], La Jornada, Oct. 25, 2016.
6 Georgetown Law Human Rights Institute (HRI), The Cost of Stemming the Tide: How Immigration Enforcement practices in Southern Mexico Limit Migrant
Children’s Access to International Protection (Apr. 2015), p. 25.
7 Amnesty International, Overlooked, Under-Protected: Mexico’s Deadly Refoulement of Central Americans Seeking Asylum (Jan. 2018), p. 12 (in a survey of
297 migrants who passed through an immigration detention center in Mexico, 75% were not informed of their right to seek asylum in Mexico); HRI, The Cost of
Stemming the Tide, p. 25, 48-50 (concerning child migrants) ; IACHR, Human Rights Situation of Migrants and Other Persons in the Context of Human Mobility in
Mexico (2014), para 534 (concerning adult migrants).
8 Manu Ureate, México recibe 67% más solicitudes de refugio, pero sólo tiene 15 oficiales para atender 2 mil casos [Mexico receives 67% more requests for
asylum, but only has 15 agents to deal with 2,000 cases], Animal Político, June 19, 2015.
9 Ximena Suarez Enriquez, Jose Knippen, Maureen Meyer, A Trail of Impunity: Thousands of Migrants in Transit Face Abuses amid Mexico’s Crackdown, WOLA
(Oct. 20, 2016).
10 COMAR currently has a backlog of thousands of cases; according to a press release by Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), as of February
2018, close to 60% of asylum applications filed in 2017 have not been processed yet. The CNDH made an urgent appeal to Mexico’s national government to act
“in the face of a possible collapse of Mexico’s refugee protection system” [“ante el posible colapso del sistema de protección de refugiados en México”].
11 COMAR, ¿Dónde está COMAR? [Where is the COMAR located?] (last accessed on May 17, 2018).
2 AR772
SAFE THIRD COUNTRIES FOR ASYLUM-SEEKERS
●● [CONTINUED] These factors are reflected in the low number of asylum applications in contrast with the high number
of apprehended migrants and despite numerous studies showing an increase in flows of asylum-seekers from the
Northern Triangle countries, due to high levels of violence and crime.12 Further, there is a low rate of success on asylum
applications in Mexico, as illustrated by the charts below.
Adult Migrants in Mexico: Apprehensions, Asylum Applications, and Grants of Asylum, 2013-201713
Year Total apprehensions Asylum applicants (applicants from Granted protection*
Northern Triangle, NT) (#NT)
2013 76,668 1,296 (887) 313 (242)
2014 104,053 2,137 (1,769) 536 (477)
2015 159,627 3,424 (3,138) 1,102 (1,015)
2016 146,102 8,796 (8,059) 3,205 (2,808)
2017 77,197 14,596 (8,656) 1,907 (958)
Total 563,647 30,249 (22,509) 7,063 (5,500)
* Figure in chart encompasses grants of asylum and complementary protection.
12 See Latin American Working Group (LAWG), Central American Families & Children Arriving at U.S.-Mexico Border Demonstrate Need for Urgent Protection
Mechanisms, Oct. 19, 2016. See also, UNHCR, Children on the Run, Apr. 2014, p. 6 (finding that of the 404 unaccompanied and separated children, ages 12-17,
from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that UNHCR interviewed, 58% raised potential international protection needs. The sample size was designed
to be representative of other similarly-situated children from these four countries); UNHCR, Arrancados de Raíz [Uprooted], 2014 (finding that of 200 migrant
children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras who were interviewed in Mexico, 48.6% had cited violence as a principal factor in leaving their homes).
13 Mexican Commission for the Assistance of Refugees (COMAR), Statistics 2013 to 2016 (last accessed on May 17, 2018). For apprehension numbers, please
consult: National Institute on Migration of Mexico (INM), Annual Statistics Bulletins (last accessed on May 17, 2018).
3 AR773
SAFE THIRD COUNTRIES FOR ASYLUM-SEEKERS
Child Migrants in Mexico: Apprehensions, Asylum Applications, and Grants of Asylum, 2013-201714
Year Total apprehensions of Child applicants for asylum Children granted
children (applicants from the protection* (#NT)
Northern Triangle, NT)
2013 9,630 63 (55) 18 (15)
2014 23,096 78 (75) 22 (22)
2015 38,514 142 (139) 44 (44)
2016 40,114 242 (229) 102 (102)
2017 18,300 259 (236) 36 (31)
Total 129,654 784 (734) 222 (214)
* Figure in chart encompasses grants of asylum and complementary protection.
●● Mexican authorities, with U.S. support, have been steadily ramping up deportations of all irregular migrants, including
children, from the Northern Triangle countries with little regard for due process, which increases the potential for
refoulement.15
Deportations from Mexico, 2013-201716
Year Total persons Deported migrants from Total children Deported children
deported Northern Triangle (% of deported from Northern
total deportations) Triangle (% of total
children deported)
2013 80,902 77,896 (96%) 8,577 8,401 (98%)
2014 107,814 104,269 (97%) 18,169 17,921 (99%)
2015 181,163 175,136 (97%) 36,921 36,497 (99%)
2016 159,872 149,540 (94%) 38,555 37,759 (98%)
2017 80,353 75,677 (94%) 16,162 15,821 (98%)
Total 610,104 582,518 (95%) 118,384 116,399 (98%)
14 Id.
15 HRI, The Cost of Stemming the Tide, p. 14-15, 18; see also, Adam Isacson, Maureen Meyer, and Hannah Smith, Increased Enforcement at Mexico’s Southern
Border, WOLA (Nov. 2015) (presenting findings on research into the impacts of Mexico’s Plan Frontera Sur).
16 INM, Annual Statistics Bulletins (last accessed on Oct. 28, 2016).
4 AR774
SAFE THIRD COUNTRIES FOR ASYLUM-SEEKERS
●● Migrants often lack sufficient protections while in Mexico: in transiting through the country to arrive at the U.S.-Mexico
border, they suffer violence and other abuses at the hands of organized crime and corrupt migration authorities.17
Further, there is a lack of justice for crimes against migrants, which allows for crimes to remain in impunity and only
serves to foster their repetition: between 2014 and 2016, “of the 5,284 crimes against migrants reported in Chiapas,
Oaxaca, Tabasco, Sonora, Coahuila, and at the federal level, there is evidence of only 49 sentences, leaving 99 percent of
the cases in impunity.”18
●● Attention may be called to Mexico’s issuance of “passes” to certain migrants. If referring to the “oficios de salida” [exit
passes], it is important to know that these only allow for a person in an irregular migratory situation to transit Mexico
for the duration of the pass (approximately 20 days). Further, they are not uniformly granted to all migrants by Mexico’s
National Institute on Migration (INM or INAMI), nor do they confer any special protection to the holder or grant him or her
a stable or renewable immigration status in Mexico.
B. Mexico is not safe for certain Mexicans
●● In addition to migrants from other countries, certain Mexican nationals face higher risks of having their human rights
violated. These include human rights defenders and journalists, particularly women and indigenous persons; LGBTI
persons; children and adolescents, particularly those being recruited for organized criminal groups; and internally-
displaced persons. Mexican women continue to remain more likely than men to experience sexual crimes or be the
victim of human trafficking.19
Part IV. Implementation of a safe third country-like provision with Mexico
In lieu of a binational agreement20, we may see the U.S. implement a safe third country-like approach in the following ways:
●● Turning persons seeking international protection back at Ports of Entry along the U.S. southern border with Mexico with
no explanation, telling them there is no space and to return later, or having them go through Mexican officials to get an
appointment for a future date to come back to the Port;
●● Returning persons to Mexico after placing them into removal proceedings, pursuant to INA section 24021;
●● Placing persons seeking international protection into expedited removal, returning them to Mexico, and conducting
credible fear interviews in Mexico22;
●● Denying a credible fear interview based on the argument that the person (if not a Mexican citizen) could have sought
protection in Mexico; or
●● Denying asylum based on this same argument.
The extent to which each of these is legal varies and may depend on details of implementation. Some may require legislation but
much of this could be implemented administratively.
17 Ximena Suárez, Andrés Díaz, José Knippen, and Maureen Meyer, Access to Justice for Migrants in Mexico: A Right that Exists Only on the Books, WOLA (July
2017); Latin American Working Group (LAWG), Central American Families & Children Arriving at U.S.-Mexico Border Demonstrate Need for Urgent Protection
Mechanisms, Oct. 19, 2016; Ximena Suarez Enriquez, Jose Knippen, Maureen Meyer, A Trail of Impunity: Thousands of Migrants in Transit Face Abuses amid
Mexico’s Crackdown, WOLA (Oct. 20, 2016).
18 Access to Justice for Migrants in Mexico: A Right that Exists Only on the Books, WOLA (July 2017), p. 4; see also, Ximena Suarez Enriquez, Jose Knippen,
Maureen Meyer, A Trail of Impunity: Thousands of Migrants in Transit Face Abuses amid Mexico’s Crackdown, WOLA (Oct. 20, 2016).
19 See, e.g., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights Situation in Mexico, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Dec. 31, 2015, p. 112-135.
20 Although it appears the U.S. and Mexico are or have been in discussions around such an agreement, see Ted Hesson, “U.S., Mexican officials to discuss
asylum pact,” Politico (May 16, 2018).
21 Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the INA provides the following: Treatment of aliens arriving from contiguous territory.-In the case of an alien described in subparagraph
(A) [referring to an alien who is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted] who is arriving on land (whether or not at a designated port of arrival) from
a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the Attorney General may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 240.” As of May
2018 and according to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Homeland Security is engag-
ing in regulatory rulemaking on this provision. See the “Return to Territory” entry in the Unified Agenda [last accessed on May 17, 2018].
22 INA Section 235 (b)(1)(B)(i) establishes that “an asylum officer shall conduct [credible fear of persecution] interviews of aliens . . . either at a port of entry or at
such other place designated by the Attorney General (emphasis added).”
5 AR775
SAFE THIRD COUNTRIES FOR ASYLUM-SEEKERS
Additionally, proposed legislation, such as section 12 of HR 391 (proposed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, in the 114th Congress
and 115th Congress), has called for modifying the INA to eliminate the requirement of a safe third country (bilateral) agreement
altogether. This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in January 2017. The practical effect of such a change would
be to bar persons from submitting asylum applications in the U.S. if they can be removed to another country where their life or
freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion and where the person would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent
protection. However, the U.S. has no guarantees that an asylum-seeker’s claim will be addressed in that third country.
Further, as the law currently stands, the Attorney General may decide to waive the safe third country exception, if s/he finds that
it is in the public interest for the asylum-seeker to receive asylum in the United States. Section 12 of HR 391 would replace the
Attorney General with the Secretary of Homeland Security, which suggests that a decision to bar an asylum application would not
be subject to a hearing before an immigration judge, as is currently the process; thus, the asylum-seeker would potentially have
no means to challenge this decision.
For more information, please contact:
Leah Chavla, Policy Advisor, Women’s Refugee Commission: leahc@wrcommission.org - tel: 202-750-8598
6 AR776
Children fleeing violence in Central America who don’t make it to the US, often end up in Mexican detention centers — or deported
PRI
DONATE Close
Search...
Jusice
On the way to the US, children seeking
About Us Contact Donate Now
asylum are often put in Mexico’s
LISTEN NAVIG
detention centers
NEWS PROGRAMS NAVIG
PRI's The World
MUSIC & VARIETY PROGRAMS NAVIG
January 03, 2017 · 11:30 AM EST
By Valeria Fernández
PODCASTS NAVIG
FEATURES NAVIG
CATEGORIES NAVIG
NEWSLETTERS NAVIG
Carlos is a minor, under 18 years old, but he was sill held with adults in Mexican immigration detention facilities. His
girlfriend, Carla, is 19 years old and was also held in detention after they crossed the border to escape their native El
Salvador.
We use cookies to undersand how you use our site and to improve your experience. To learn
more,
Credit:Valeria our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies and
Fernández/PRI
review
Privacy Policy.
OK, I UNDERSTAND. CLOSE
AR777
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-03/children-fleeing-violence-central-america-who-don-t-make-it-us-often-end-mexican[7/19/2019 12:16:03 PM]
Children fleeing violence in Central America who don’t make it to the US, often end up in Mexican detention centers — or deported
Carlos was so scared inside the Mexican immigration detention
center that insead of telling ofcers he was feeing El Salvador after
gang threats, the 16-year-old asked to be deported back to his
country.
He shouldn’t have had to make that choice. Because, according to Mexican laws, as a
minor he shouldn’t have been in an immigration detention center in the frs place.
In the US, immigration ofcials are facing increased scrutiny about the conditions in
which they hold Central American minors. In Texas this month, immigration ofcials
released 500 women and children from detention after a federal judge ruled their
facilities couldn’t be licensed to provide childcare.
Mexico too is being criticized for the incarceration of thousands of children crossing the
border to escape violence in Central America. Their National Human Rights Commission
issued a 250-page report this October denouncing conditions and treatment of children
in detention centers, like the one where Carlos was held.
“Unaccompanied children should not enter, much less be detained at any point at an
immigration sation,” says Edgar Corzo Sosa, general inspector for Mexico’s National
Human Rights Commission. They should, insead, be moved to a shelter that cares for
children.
AR778
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-03/children-fleeing-violence-central-america-who-don-t-make-it-us-often-end-mexican[7/19/2019 12:16:03 PM]
Children fleeing violence in Central America who don’t make it to the US, often end up in Mexican detention centers — or deported
Carlos is afraid of being found by gangs, so he asked not to use his las name in this
report. He is among more than 15,000 children who were detained after crossing the
border into Mexico in the frs 10 months of 2016. Many of those children have a right to
apply for refugee satus under Mexican law. According to government policy, when
Carlos was apprehended seven months ago, he should have been transferred to a
children’s shelter, where he could have received services and likely would have told
authorities that he was seeking protection from violence. This would have allowed him to
begin the process of seeking asylum.
Subscribe to the Global Nation Newsletter
Weekly newsletter featuring real-world sories of immigrants in the US.
Your name
Your email
Subscribe
Insead, he spent 14 days detained with adult men. The frs four days, he was held in a
humid and cramped cell in a temporary holding facility near Veracruz. He says they slept
on dirty pads with bugs. The cell had a clogged toilet that smelled terrible.
Guards at the small sation put him in a separate room when the human rights
commission saf came to interview him on one of their regular monitoring visits. The
guards told him not to say that he had been detained with adults. He told them anyway.
“Afterwards immigration ofcials came for me and told me, ‘Why did you tell them that?’”
Carlos says in Spanish. “They sarted to admonish me and they said that since I like
being with adults, they’ll put me back there. And they did.”
That experience solidifed his disrus of Mexico’s immigration authorities. And his
experience only got worse.
AR779
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-03/children-fleeing-violence-central-america-who-don-t-make-it-us-often-end-mexican[7/19/2019 12:16:03 PM]
Children fleeing violence in Central America who don’t make it to the US, often end up in Mexican detention centers — or deported
We are Public Media
Support us with a monthly recurring gift
Donate
Policemen sand outside the facilities of the Siglo XXI immigration facilities in Tapachula, in the Mexican
sate of Chiapas October 29, 2014.
Credit:Juan Manuel /Reuters
After the holding facility, Carlos spent 10 days sleeping on cement beds in an
immigration detention center meant for adults in Tapachula, Chiapas, near the
Guatemalan border. He was at Siglo XXI, one of the larges government-run detention
facilities for migrants in Mexico. The center can hold up to 960 people at a time.
The food, he says, was so bad that he became ill and vomited. Inside there was a
marero (gang member) who threatened his life for supposedly being part of a rival gang,
which he wasn’t.
“He told me, ‘I’ll kill you at night, you’ll see. When you wake up in the morning you will
AR780
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-03/children-fleeing-violence-central-america-who-don-t-make-it-us-often-end-mexican[7/19/2019 12:16:03 PM]
Children fleeing violence in Central America who don’t make it to the US, often end up in Mexican detention centers — or deported
have your guts out,’” Carlos recalls. “I was going to ask for asylum but I insead asked for
my deportation.”
He says he was beaten inside the sation by a gang member, and that he complained to
ofcers who didn’t do anything. No one asked him if he was seeking refugee satus
either, which is information children and teenagers won’t often volunteer immediately,
according to experts.
“That’s why it’s so important for them to have specialized attention for children and not
for them to be locked in an immigration sation,” says Gerardo Espinoza, an invesigator
at the Fray Matías de Córdova Human Rights Center. The nonproft has some access to
children and detainees at the Siglo XXI detention sation.
Journaliss are not allowed in the facility and our requess for a tour were turned down.
Mexican immigration ofcials also turned down an interview reques; they said mos
personnel were busy dealing with an infux of Haitians.
“It’s not normal that an insitution dedicated to detain and deport minors at the same time
is the insitution that protects them. There’s something counterintuitive in this situation,”
says Corzo Sosa from the human rights commission.
AR781
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-03/children-fleeing-violence-central-america-who-don-t-make-it-us-often-end-mexican[7/19/2019 12:16:03 PM]
Children fleeing violence in Central America who don’t make it to the US, often end up in Mexican detention centers — or deported
Children play in the Suchiate River near Tecun Uman on Augus 7, 2014. Stretches of the wild, tropical
and largely uninhabited Guatemalan border with Mexico are as porous as ever. The US and Mexico
have cooperated to try to handle the increased numbers of families and children who are alone and
crossing the borders to escape violence and poverty in Central America.
Credit:Jorge Dan Lopez/Reuters
In 2015, Mexico’s Human Rights Commission found that 36,174 minors, unaccompanied
or not, were detained by the National Insitute of Migration, the country’s immigration
enforcement agency. Only a third were referred to the sate’s shelter sysem for children.
Mexican law makes it clear that children’s bes interess need to be protected regardless
of their country of origin. But it does allow for children to be placed in detention in
“exceptional circumsances,” when children’s shelters are at full capacity.
Each shelter operates independently, sometimes under sate or municipal authority. The
National Sysem for Integral Family Development, which oversees children’s shelters,
AR782
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-03/children-fleeing-violence-central-america-who-don-t-make-it-us-often-end-mexican[7/19/2019 12:16:03 PM]
Children fleeing violence in Central America who don’t make it to the US, often end up in Mexican detention centers — or deported
did not respond to inquiries for this sory.
Also: Advocates sugges another option — humanitarian visas — for US-bound Central
Americans
Carlos was deported in June after two weeks in detention. But he didn’t take long to
return to Mexico. I met him and his 19-year-old girlfriend, Carla, then nine months
pregnant, in mid-July at a privately-run shelter for underage youth in Tapachula,
Chiapas, near the border with Guatemala. Carla had faced similar hardships in women’s
immigration detention facilities.
Carlos looks his age. He is light skinned with tiny baby curls in his hair. Carla has dark
skin and deep black eyes. She spent a lot of time resing on a patio, ready to give birth at
any minute.
This was their third time trying to cross, and this time they managed to evade authorities
and fnd shelter on their own. They had travelled by small shuttles or by foot, sleeping on
the sreet or hiding in the jungle to avoid immigration checkpoints. Unlike the great
majority of Central American youth who cross alone into Mexico, Carla and Carlos are
not trying to reach the US. They were headed to Tijuana, Mexico, where Carla’s mother
lives.
On July 7, 2014, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto launched a new southern
border srategy called “Plan Integral Frontera Sur.” The Mexican president emphasized
that the plan included increased protections for migrants and that unaccompanied
minors would have a special place to be processed before being repatriated.
In practice, that’s not what happened.
From January through October of 2016, at leas 12,000 unaccompanied minors were
detained in immigration sations for adults in Mexico, while another 4,749 received
attention in children shelters, according to a public records reques in Mexico.
AR783
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-03/children-fleeing-violence-central-america-who-don-t-make-it-us-often-end-mexican[7/19/2019 12:16:03 PM]
Children fleeing violence in Central America who don’t make it to the US, often end up in Mexican detention centers — or deported
The US has condoned Mexico’s immigration srategy. According to a Congressional
Research Services report released las March, the State Department contributed $20
million, mosly in the form of equipment and immigration enforcement training, as part of
Plan Frontera Sur. Obama praised the collaboration with Mexico during a meeting with
Peña Nieto in January 2015.
“I very much appreciate Mexico’s eforts in addressing the unaccompanied children who
we saw spiking during the summer. In part because of srong eforts by Mexico,
including at its southern border, we’ve seen those numbers reduced back to much more
manageable levels,” Obama said.
Some view the exchange as positive cooperation between countries. But human rights
advocates say the US is putting political pressure on Mexico to intersect and deport US-
bound minors.
“We’re conscious here that the responsibility when it comes to immigration policies
comes from the US and descends toward Mexico and Central America,” says Espinoza
of the Córdova Human Rights Center.
As a result of its new border enforcement initiative, Mexico has deported more than
36,000 unaccompanied Central American children, toddlers to 17-year-olds, from July
2014 to October 2016. In comparison, the US has deported 6,055 youth that came to the
country as unaccompanied children from October 2013 to September 2016. Mos of
them were 18-year olds by the time they were deported, but some were minors,
according to an ICE spokesperson.
"If an immigration judge orders an unaccompanied child removed from the United
States, or grants voluntary departure, ICE arranges for the child's safe return to his or
her country of nationality according to agency policy and procedures. ICE recognizes
that UAC [unaccompanied alien children] are a particularly vulnerable population and
mus be repatriated with special consideration and care,” ICE said in satement.
In the US, there is a separate agency that takes cusody of unaccompanied minors while
AR784
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-03/children-fleeing-violence-central-america-who-don-t-make-it-us-often-end-mexican[7/19/2019 12:16:03 PM]
Children fleeing violence in Central America who don’t make it to the US, often end up in Mexican detention centers — or deported
they go through immigration proceedings for their deportation or to gain some form of
asylum or humanitarian relief. They are housed in shelters under the oversight of the
Ofce of Refugee Resettlement; the facilities are only for children.
On their third try, Carla and Carlos made it across the border without being detained by Mexican
authorities. Their son was born after they arrived at a privately-run shelter.
Credit:Valeria Fernández/PRI
As the number of Central American children escaping violence alone or with families
continues to spike, the campaign promises of US President-elect Donald Trump are also
a concern for advocates.
“If a wall is built, it will be a challenge for Mexico because its southern border remains
AR785
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-03/children-fleeing-violence-central-america-who-don-t-make-it-us-often-end-mexican[7/19/2019 12:16:03 PM]
Children fleeing violence in Central America who don’t make it to the US, often end up in Mexican detention centers — or deported
permeable,” says Espinoza. “We’re going to sart seeing Mexico as a desination country
because many people will be trapped here.”
And that could mean more children in detention on their way to deportation.
On a humid and hot afternoon, I meet Carlos and Carla’s newborn, Carlos Steven. Carla
gave birth about 10 days after they arrived at the privately-run shelter. She lays in bed
with her baby, who is covered in a white cotton blanket. His tiny wris has a red bead
bracelet to protect him from the evil eye.
They will no longer pursue asylum. Because their son was born a Mexican citizen, they
can apply for residency in Mexico, where they plan to say.
“It is a disappointment to have an experience like the one we had,” Carlos says. “I wish I
could be in my country. But we can’t.”
Valeria Fernández is a fellow of “Bringing Home the World,” a program from the
International Center for Journaliss, which helped make this report possible.
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.
Your name
Your email
Subscribe
By subscribing, I agree to receive emails from The World and Inksick Media.
Categories: Confict & Jusice, Jusice, Politics, Global Politics and Global Nation.
Tagged: immigration, Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, children,
AR786
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-03/children-fleeing-violence-central-america-who-don-t-make-it-us-often-end-mexican[7/19/2019 12:16:03 PM]
Children fleeing violence in Central America who don’t make it to the US, often end up in Mexican detention centers — or deported
unaccompanied minors crossing border, immigration detention and shelters.
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
Major funding provided by:
AR787
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-03/children-fleeing-violence-central-america-who-don-t-make-it-us-often-end-mexican[7/19/2019 12:16:03 PM]
Children fleeing violence in Central America who don’t make it to the US, often end up in Mexican detention centers — or deported
A Partner of OZY Media News
About PRI | Contact us | Donate | Meet the PRI.org Team | Privacy policy | Terms of use
©2019 Public Radio International
AR788
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-03/children-fleeing-violence-central-america-who-don-t-make-it-us-often-end-mexican[7/19/2019 12:16:03 PM]
AR789
FACT SHEETS
Our Nation’s Weak Asylum Laws are
Encouraging an Overwhelming Increase In
Illegal Immigration
IMMIGRATION
Issued on: November 1, 2018
“We will not rest until our border is secure, our citizens are safe, and we finally end the
immigration crisis once and for all.”
President Donald J. Trump
MISUSED ASYLUM LAWS: Flaws in our asylum system allow illegal aliens with meritless
claims to cross our borders and remain here for years.
Our Nation’s asylum laws have allowed illegal aliens with meritless claims to easily enter and
stay in the United States while awaiting legal proceedings.
Asylum seekers at the border only have to meet the low bar for establishing a “credible fear” of
returning under which they must show a “possibility” to qualify for asylum.
o Aliens who claim a credible fear of returning do not have to provide any verification or
corroboration of their claims in order to receive a positive determination and be released
into the interior of the United States.
As a result, illegal aliens with meritless cases that are released from detention are able to remain
in our communities for years, while their cases are litigated in immigration courts.
AN OVERWHELMING SURGE: Our country faces a growing and overwhelming surge of
illegal aliens seeking to take advantage of our weak asylum laws.
Today, approximately one in 10 illegal aliens arriving at our southern border claims a credible
fear of return, up from one out of every 100 prior to 2013.
o Since 2010, these claims have spiked by 1,700 percent.
AR790
o This staggering increase has contributed to a backlog of hundreds of thousands of cases
in our immigration courts.
This surge is only growing, with reports showing that asylum requests at the southern border have
recently increased from 1,500 per week to approximately 2,000 per week.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) processed approximately 100,000 credible
fear claims this last fiscal year (FY), surpassing the 94,000 record set in FY 2016.
o In FY 2018, USCIS received approximately 106,000 new asylum requests from those
admitted legally, compared to only 25,500 in 2008.
o Immigration courts received approximately 160,000 asylum requests in FY 2018,
compared to only 42,000 in FY 2008.
A DRIVING FACTOR IN ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: The standards that apply to the
credible fear process is a major driver of our Nation’s immigration crisis.
While there has been an enormous spike in credible fear-initiated claims, relatively few asylum
claims have ultimately been found to be meritorious.
Approximately 80 percent of aliens arriving from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador passed
initial credible fear screenings, but only 15 percent of those were granted asylum.
There has been a major increase in the number of illegal alien family units arriving at our border
and family units now make up a significant percentage of credible fear claims.
o The number of family units apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection has
increased 620 percent during the past five years.
o Family units make up about 40 percent of all credible fear-initiated asylum claims.
o As a result of loopholes, nearly all asylum seekers in family units are permitted by the
Department of Homeland Security to remain in the United States, pending their asylum
hearing.
AR791
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.344869.29.9.pdf
- Size
- 6,493,499 bytes
- SHA-256
- 7e7261f5db0612261eaab0ca5561c5175ce3211ffbb5c617de6127c402810dda
- Original
- archive.org