In an official comment, AJC and its Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights have called on the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to withdraw a sweeping set of changes they have proposed to implement to the U.S. asylum system and which appear to contradict important international obligations that the U.S. has voluntarily assumed and that AJC and JBI have long championed.
The agencies' proposals, entitled “Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal; Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Review,” are open for public comment until 11:59 pm on July 15. The comment expresses opposition to a number of the agencies’ specific proposals, including those that would:
- alter the definition of key legal terms to bar asylum claims made by people fleeing criminal gangs and gender-based violence, contradicting guidance on who can qualify as a refugee pursuant to the Refugee Convention issued by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR);
- discourage the granting of asylum claims from anyone who transited through another country on their way to the U.S., without any regard to whether they would have faced persecution or torture in the countries through which they traveled, again contradicting UNHCR;
- change the asylum determination process in ways that would deny applicants a “fair” proceeding, as defined by UNHCR;
- bar claims for protection from people fleeing a risk of torture by a “rogue official,” though the UN Committee Against Torture’s interpretation of the definition of torture recognizes no such distinction.
The comment expresses AJC's and JBI's serious concern that if implemented, the proposed regulations would effectively deny many people fleeing for their lives and livelihoods their right to seek asylum and would put them at risk of being returned or expelled to countries where they face a substantial risk of persecution, torture, or other serious harm. It calls on the agencies to withdraw their proposed regulations and instead pursue alternative ways to accomplish their policy aims, such as providing clarification for adjudicators and increasing efficiency and consistency in the handling of asylum claims, in ways that would not give rise to such a serious risk of harming asylum-seekers.