Asylum analysis : Immigration Law
Asylum analysis
Matter of Chang (I & N 1989) If a law or policy isn’t inherently persecutive, one can’t demonstrate that it is persecutive simply with evidence that it is applied to all persons, including those who don’t agree with it—fact that a citizen of another country may not enjoy same const’l protections as a citizen of the U.S. doesn’t mean he qualifies as “persecuted”
Asylum—Uniform national policy
Const’l protection—none
Matter of H- (I & N 1996) Social group must be restricted to individuals who possess a characteristic so fundamental to their identities or conscience that they’re either unable to change by their own actions or shouldn’t be required to change in order to avoid persecution
Asylum—Social group
Matter of Acosta (I & N 1985) If you could change your job or comply with certain circumstances, then not in a qualified social group (members of taxi cooperate)
Asylum—Social group
Fatin v. INS (3rd Cir. 1993) To qualify for asylum based on membership in a particular social group, alien must 1. identify group that constitutes particular social group; 2. establish membership in that group; and 3. show persecution or well-founded fear of persecution based on that membership—have to show would rather suffer the consequences of noncompliance w/ the laws than comply
Asylum—Resistance to social norms
Matter of Kasinga (I & N 1996) Subjective “punitive” or “malignant” intent isn’t required for harm to constitute persecution—FGM
Asylum—Resistance to social norms
