Birdsong's Law Blog

Professor Birdsong’s student, Shellie Ponce, who was enrolled in my comparative Immigration Law class and my Refugee Law Seminar wrote an interesting and timely paper that compares rates of domestic violence and asylum claims in immigrant welcoming countries.  Read and learn more about it.  Ms. Ponce gave her permission to put her piece on my blog.

Michael Severe graduated from Barry Law in December 2011.  He was one of Professor Birdsong’s favorite students.  During Michael’s last semester he wrote a very interesting and well researched paper in the Refugee Law Seminar arguing that U.S. Immigration Judges have much too much discretionary powers.  I agree with him. Michael has given me permission to publish his paper on my blog.  Read it and learn…

Discretionary Powers of the Immigration Court

And the Board of Immigration Appeals

and Issues Surrounding Particular Social Groups

By: Michael Severe

 I.                  Introduction

 Immigration is a vital part of any nation’s legal framework for many different reasons. It allows for new blood and new ideas to be integrated into a society. The United States has long been a destination for potential immigrants, seeking to benefit from the historical abundance of opportunities in this country, and the safety of political and ideological freedoms. As a result, the United States has developed a large body of both case law, and statutory law designed to address the issues of immigration.

One of the most important forms of immigration in the United States is refugee protection, gained generally through asylum. Asylum has a long and rich history, dating back as far as ancient Greece where criminals could find sanctuary in certain “temples, altars, sacred groves, and statues of the gods”[1]. In Rome, a more modern form of asylum began to take shape when Romulus opened the city to asylum seekers who were seeking a “place of refuge”[2]. Asylum law has taken many forms, and most societies with codified laws have offered some form of protection for people seeking sanctuary.

In the United States, there are numerous codifications of the issues revolving around

Edita Pojani was a student in Professor Birdsong’s Refugee Law seminar last spring.  She wrote a very well written paper that  examines the issue of gender bias in asylum law.  Ms. Pojani is an advocate for a  better U.S. immigration policy that explicitly recognizes violations inflicted upon women as a valid grounds for asylum.  She has given her permission to post  her paper on my blog.  Read and learn.

Recognizing Gender-Based Persecution as Grounds for Asylum

Edita Pojani

Refugee & Asylum Seminar

 I.  Introduction

The image that comes to mind when thinking about a refugee or a human rights victim is that of a male figure, persecuted on account of his political or religious beliefs, nationality or ethnicity.[1]  For far too long the world seems to have forgotten about the thousands of women who flee their country of origin due to persecution they have suffered on account of their gender. 

This paper will consider the issue of gender bias in asylum law, and will advocate for a U.S. immigration policy that explicitly recognizes violations inflicted upon women as a valid grounds for asylum.  While recognizing that gender based persecution can be inflicted on both women and men, the discussion in this paper will focus mainly on the challenges that women face as they battle with a system which so far has done little to take under consideration their unique claims that stem from persecution imposed upon them because they were born of the female sex. 

In addition, this paper will address the central themes critically important in the determination of claims for asylum made by women fleeing gender persecution.  It will advocate that gender specific abuses against women should be recognized as a

Virginia Ponder, a student in Professor Birdsong’s spring Refugee Law seminar, has written an excellent paper that examines whether a parent who opposes female genital mutilation, and fears the mutilation of her child, raises a valid claim for protection under U.S. asylum law?  The circuit court responses thus far have been diverse.  Ms. Ponder has given permission to post her paper on the blog.  Read it and see what you think.

THE DILEMMA OF PARENT-CHILD

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION JURISPRUDENCE

Virginia L. Ponder

 God has blessed me.  He made me suffer but He also blessed me. 

I am safe and free in America, surrounded by people who love me. 

Others are not so fortunate.  They are being held in prisons, being

denied asylum, and being sent back to terrible forms of suffering. 

My friends, all the friends I made in prison, cried for joy for me

the day I walked into freedom.  [1]                                                                                                                                                       I.            Introduction

Almost fourteen years ago in the landmark decision In re Kasinga[2], the Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest administrative authority interpreting asylum law, found Female Genital Mutilation[3] (FGM) to be a form of persecution warranting a finding of asylum.  Kasinga’s claim was based on the risk she would be subjected to FGM if returned to her home country and the decision established basic doctrine favorable to such a claim.[4]  It was a milestone in the consideration of gender related asylum cases and advanced protection for women who fear FGM.  Currently a new question regarding FGM is circulating in our immigration courts.  Does a parent who opposes FGM, and fears the mutilation of her child, raise a valid claim for protection under U.S. asylum law?  The circuit court responses thus far have been diverse. 

The “parent-child FGM issue” most commonly presents itself when a non-US citizen parent asserts asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under Convention Against Torture [5](CAT) because she fears her US citizen or resident daughter will

Professor Birdsong’s Refugee Law seminar Student, Jason Patrou, wrote a well researched paper on the Safe Third Country Agreement between the United States and Canada concerning asylum applicants.  Jason has given me his permission to post his paper on the blog.  Since most of you do not know that we have a safe third country agreement with Canada, why don’t you read what Jason has written and you will learn something valuable.

CANADIAN COUNSEL FOR REFUGEES V. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN: IS THE UNITED STATES A SAFE THIRD COUNTRY?

 By:  Justin Patrou

May 6, 2010

            Introduction

 The Nazi persecution of Jews throughout Europe was by no means the first persecution by a government of its people, nor was it likely to be the last attempt by a government to persecute those the country governs.  In fact, during World War II, one might say that the United States of America, one of the ally countries fighting Nazi Germany, persecuted a segment of its society when the United States created a series of laws discriminated against Japanese-Americans.[1]  After the travesties of World War II the international community felt compelled to act and ensure that in the future, those who are persecuted by the countries in which they reside would be protected by international law and have the ability to seek refuge in another country without the fear of refoulement.[2] 

The origins of modern refugee law can be found in three international treaties:  the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Convention”), the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Protocol”), and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“Convention Against Torture”).  The Convention, which was incorporated into the Protocol, expressed that all states should recognize the social and humanitarian nature of refugees and “will do everything within their power to prevent this problem from becoming a cause of tension between States.” 

Under international law, specifically the Protocol which expanded the term of refugees to include those individuals who reside outside of Europe, a refugee is