Carter Center Urges an End to Election-Related Violence in Nepal

Carter Center Urges an End to Election-Related Violence in Nepal

18 March 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

CONTACTS:
In Atlanta: Deborah Hakes, +1 404 420 5124
In Kathmandu: Darren Nance, +977 1 444 5055/1446

The Carter Center’s international election observation mission in Nepal has observed the pre-electoral environment in the country for the past 14 months.  The Center is encouraged by the level of electoral preparations and campaigning presently taking place, as this represents a marked increase from the two previous election periods in June and November 2007.  Additionally, following the signing of the United Madhesi Democratic Front (UMDF) agreement, the security situation has improved significantly in the Terai, though many districts remain fragile.  All across the country, the Center’s long term observers report that the people of Nepal want to participate in the constituent assembly election and expect that a successful election will bring sustainable peace, democracy, and prosperity to Nepal.

However, political parties and the government need to continue and increase activities that reassure voters of their commitment to the April 10 election.  Following the two previous postponements, the Nepali public has grown skeptical about the government’s genuine commitment to the April date.  Additionally, the Center is deeply concerned by reports of continued Maoist and Young Communist League (YCL) violence in the hill and mountain districts, as well as announced plans to disrupt the election by armed groups in the Terai.  The Center strongly condemns these activities and notes their potential to significantly hamper the electoral environment, decrease voter turnout, and call into question the election’s credibility. 

With only 22 days remaining before the constituent assembly election, the Carter Center’s international election observation mission in Nepal puts forward the following recommendations in order to ensure a credible and successful electoral process.  Specifically, The Carter Center:

• Calls on all parties to sustain their commitment to the April 10 constituent assembly election and increase peaceful campaigning efforts particularly at the village level;
• Urges an immediate cessation of Maoist and YCL violence, threats, and harassment, which have increased in recent weeks and which threaten the credibility of their party, the election, and the peace process;
• Notes concern over reported plans by the Maoists and other parties to mobilize up to 200 supporters per polling station on election day, given the potential for intimidation of voters and conflict between parties;
• Requests the government to fully implement the agreement signed with the UMDF as well as other agreements, including swift action on the provision to create a conducive environment for talks with the armed Madhesi groups in order to ward off their potential to act as spoilers to the process;
• Encourages moderate Madhesi leaders to use their authority to publicly and privately insist that the armed groups cease violence intended to disturb the election;
• Calls on the government to strengthen its support for the Nepal Police and the Armed Police Force in order to facilitate their ability to provide a secure electoral environment, and to implement appropriate security measures in consultation with local community leaders, while sustaining their commitment to the protection of human rights;
• Advises the political parties, the government, and the Election Commission to act strongly on their shared obligation to respect and vigorously enforce the electoral code of conduct; 
• Suggests a public and transparent agreement regarding the rules of conduct for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and Nepal Army (NA) during the electoral period in order to address fears that either group will attempt to leave their areas and influence the process; 
• Advocates for continued intensive voter education in order to familiarize voters with the purpose of the constituent assembly election and the new electoral system;
• Suggests that the Election Commission and the government clearly and in a coordinated manner explain to the public the post-election transition plan, including the length of time needed to process the election results, the process for forming a government following the election, and the procedure for initiating the work of the constituent assembly;
• Encourages domestic observer networks to rigorously train their observers in order to ensure the presence of an impartial and effective domestic observation effort;
• Calls on the international community to use its collective voice to consistently condemn election-related violence and violations of the electoral code of conduct.

####

 

“Waging Peace. Fighting Disease. Building Hope.”

A not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization, The Carter Center has helped to improve life for people in more than 70 countries by resolving conflicts; advancing democracy, human rights, and economic opportunity; preventing diseases; improving mental health care; and teaching farmers in developing nations to increase crop production. The Carter Center was founded in 1982 by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, in partnership with Emory University, to advance peace and health worldwide.

The Carter Center conducts election observation activities in a nonpartisan, professional manner in accordance with applicable Nepali law and international standards for election observation as set forth in the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation. The Center coordinates closely with other international and domestic observer delegations and publishes its statements on its Web site: www.cartercenter.org. The goal of the Center’s mission in Nepal is to demonstrate international support for and provide an independent assessment of the constituent assembly election process in order to help to consolidate sustainable peace and multi-party democracy in Nepal.

Filed under: A Lawless Scoiety, Failed Leaders, Human Rights, Justice, Laws, Legal Development

A more dangerous passage from Mexico to U.S.

Source: http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/775552.html

Fewer people are trying to cross into the U.S., and the smuggling network has made it more harrowing.

By Susan Ferriss – sferriss@sacbee.com

Joe Romero, a Border Patrol agent in El Paso, Texas, stands at a point where immigrant crossings are watched. He said smugglers have become much more abusive. Ashley Lowery / Special to The Bee

AGUA PRIETA, MEXICO – Georgina Salinas thought the smuggler would get her to California.

Her husband was in Yuba City, laid up with a broken foot after a ladder collapsed while he was harvesting olives. She needed to get north to take his place in the fields and make money.

On a February night, she and a half dozen other migrants prepared to climb a ladder over the border fence into Arizona. As they waited for the right time, Salinas said, “One of the ‘coyotes’ raped a woman right in front of me, inside a car.”

The woman, so desperate to reach the United States, didn’t fight back.

Since the federal government brought in the National Guard to help tighten controls along the Mexican border two years ago, reports show fewer people are crossing. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security says seizures of migrants dropped 20 percent at the border between 2006 and 2007, from 1,072,000 people to 858,000 last year.

Those migrants still determined to cross are increasingly vulnerable. Many of the traditional coyotes who would shepherd migrants all the way to their destination will no longer risk a crossing, and they’ve been replaced by a more transient, more desperate breed.

Smugglers are “getting frustrated because they don’t have carte blanche now,” said Jesus Rodriguez, an agent based in the Border Patrol’s Tucson office.

He oversees the stretch of border that cuts between Agua Prieta and Douglas, Ariz., where Salinas and her group crossed before being captured and sent back to Mexico.

In El Paso, Texas, 260 miles east of Agua Prieta, Border Patrol agent Joe Romero said fly-by-night smugglers who prey on naive migrants are flourishing.

In the past, he said, smuggling networks were more village-based, and coyotes were less likely to abuse migrants because they had reputations to maintain.

“The original guides weren’t even in this for the money,” Romero said. “They were doing it for their neighbors.”

Salinas and several men from her town in Mexico’s Veracruz state said they didn’t know the smugglers who passed through their town scouting for customers. Through word of mouth, though, they heard that they were trustworthy and would charge $2,000 to get them all the way to Yuba City.

One of the traffickers told the migrants to meet him in Tulancingo in the neighboring state of Hidalgo, Salinas said. He asked each of them for hundreds of dollars’ worth of pesos up front to cover bus fare and other costs of getting them to the Arizona border.

Once at the border, across from Douglas, Ariz., other smugglers took over, driving them to a border fence. The men were ordered to get out of the car, Salinas said, and one of the coyotes, who was drunk, attacked another woman in front of Salinas.

Salinas tearfully recounted how the victim had complied and how the others did nothing.

They had invested so much money by then, she said, and were so close that they stayed with the smugglers and followed their instructions to scale a ladder and jump to the other side.

Roman Garcia, who was traveling with Salinas, looked ashamed as the migrants discussed what they had witnessed.

It used to be easier, he said. He’d gotten to California once before, several years ago. Within a month of pruning grapevines in Napa, laboring in tomato fields west of Sacramento and picking melons, persimmons and other fruits and vegetables, he was able to pay off the $1,200 fee the smugglers had charged.

It wasn’t long after he, Salinas and the others crossed over this time that Border Patrol agents found them and sent them back to Agua Prieta.

Like other migrants caught along that stretch of border, they gathered at a migrant shelter run by the Catholic Church.

Volunteers at the refuge, called the Center for Attention to the Migrant Exodus, say migrants’ stories are getting grimmer.

Each time the United States has tightened security at the border, starting in the mid-1990s, more deaths have resulted, said volunteer Rosa Soto Moreno.

Last year, even with fewer people trying to cross the border, just as many migrants died from exposure, drownings, accidents or killings. Mexican media reported government tallies showing that about 450 Mexicans died on the border last year, compared with 425 in 2006 and 443 in 2005.

Migrants who make it over the border between Agua Prieta and Douglas often end up in Phoenix, where they are hidden in safe houses until transported to their destinations, police said.

Officers say the safe houses are providing new revenue for smugglers. Phoenix police rescued more than 550 victims last year from these drop spots. Smugglers had been holding them hostage until family members paid extra for their release.

“Some of what we’re seeing is the unintended consequence of tightening the border,” said Alfonso Peña, special agent in charge of investigations with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Phoenix.

Rodriguez, the agent in Tucson, believes the Border Patrol has deterred some smugglers by working with Mexico in a joint program called Operation Oasis. Since 2005, U.S. officials have passed onto Mexican officials the cases of more than 600 suspected smugglers whom U.S. attorneys felt they wouldn’t be able to successfully prosecute.

Mexico’s justice system is flawed, some agents say, but smugglers can sit in jail so long awaiting trial that it takes them out of circulation.

Up in Yuba City, Salinas’ husband said he has no more use for smugglers. After working here illegally for four years, he said he’s ready to go back to his wife. And he doesn’t want her to try again to cross the border.

Their grown son, also an illegal immigrant, will stay, because his wages support his brother, who attends a university in Mexico.

“He’s a very good boy, very religious,” Georgina Salinas said of her son in Yuba City. “He has sacrificed for his brother, to keep him in college.”

Filed under: Human Rights, Immigratoin Reform, Justice, Laws

BIA grants humanitarian asylum to Somalian FGM victims

BIA grants humanitarian asylum to Somalian FGM victims: Matter of S-A-K- and H-A-H-, Interim Decision #3602, 24 I&N Dec. 464 (BIA 2008)
Matter of S-A-K- and H-A-H-, Interim Decision #3602, 24 I&N Dec. 464 (BIA 2008): “A mother and daughter from Somalia who provided sufficient evidence of past persecution in the form of female genital mutilation with aggravated circumstances are eligible for a grant of asylum based on humanitarian grounds pursuant to 8 C.F.R § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A) (2007), regardless of whether they can establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. Matter of Chen, 20 I&N Dec. 16 (BIA 1989), followed.”

Source: http://bibdaily.com/

Filed under: Asylum in the US, Human Rights, Immigratoin Reform, Justice

Filing Asylum in Canada

Canada signed the Geneva Convention of 1951 and the 1967 protocol to the convention. The Canadian government uses the Geneva Convention definition of Convention Refugee.

Whether a person claims to be a Convention refugee at a Canadian port-of-entry or after entry into Canada, it is the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), which determines whether he or she is a Convention refugee. The IRB is an independent, quasi-judicial, specialized tribunal composed of members appointed by the government. (Source: http://www.asylumlaw.org/legal_tools/index.cfm?category=59&countryID=35)

APPLYING IN CANADA 

After eligibility to apply is confirmed by Citizenship & Immigration Canada asylum seekers deal with the Immigration Refugee Board (IRB). The IRB is an independent administrative tribunal that decides refugee claims. Members are appointed by the Canadian government.

Applicants have 28 days to complete and lodge the Personal Information Form (PIF), which is the main application document. In the PIF applicants detail why they fear returning home.
>>View an Unoffical PIF (MS Word format, 411 kb)

As the PIF is a long and complicated document, most asylum seekers try to get some legal assistance in filling it out. Legal Aid is available to applicants in some provinces but not all parts of Canada, and applicants first have to apply for it. Some community organisations also provide legal assistance.

After lodging their PIF applicants wait for notification of when their case will be heard in the IRB, which usually takes between three and six months. Additional documents can be submitted and amendments made to support their application (things like identification documents, media reports from their home country) right up to the date of the hearing.

For more detailed information on the in Canada application process see the Canadian Section of asylumlaw.org and the FCJ Refugee Project’s How to Make a Refugee Claim in Canada

 

Source: http://www.survival-comparisons.org.au/can2.htmpif-english-canada.doc

Filed under: Asylum in Canada, Human Rights, Immigratoin Reform, Justice, Laws, Legal Development, Young Lawyers

Filing Asylum in the UK

The United Kingdom has a proud tradition of providing a place of safety for genuine refugees. However, we are determined to refuse protection to those who do not need it and will take steps to remove those who are found to have made false claims.

Asylum is protection given by a country to someone who is fleeing persecution in their own country. It is given under the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. To be recognised as a refugee, you must have left your country and be unable to go back because you have a well-founded fear of persecution.

The United Kingdom also adheres to the European Convention on Human Rights, which prevents us sending someone to a country where there is a real risk they will be exposed to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

If you do not qualify for asylum but we think there are humanitarian or other reasons why we should allow you to stay in the United Kingdom, we may give you temporary permission to remain here.

In 2006, 17 out of every 100 people who applied for asylum were recognised as refugees and given asylum. Another nine out of every 100 who applied for asylum but did not qualify for refugee status were given permission to stay for humanitarian or other reasons. (At the time these figures were published, 13 in every 100 applications had not yet resulted in a final decision.)

For more information on the number of asylum applications we receive and their outcomes, read the asylum statistics in Immigration facts and figures.

See Claiming asylum for more information on making an application.

We now aim to conclude all new asylum applications within six months. This means that within six months:

• a successful applicant will start integration into life in the United Kingdom; or
• an unsuccessful applicant will return home, either voluntarily or by enforced removal.

More information on this can be found in The asylum process section.

For the full, technical details of the policy and process our asylum staff follow, see Policy and Law.

Who can claim asylum?

Asylum is given under the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. To be recognised as a refugee, you must have left your country and be unable to go back because you have a well-founded fear of persecution because of your:

• race;
• religion;
• nationality;
• political opinion; or
• membership of a particular social group.

In 2006, 17 out of every 100 people who applied for asylum were recognised as refugees and given asylum.

If you do not qualify for recognition as a refugee but we think there are humanitarian or other reasons why we should allow you to stay in the United Kingdom, we may give you temporary permission to remain here. See Human rights applications for more information.

How to claim asylum

You must be in the United Kingdom in order to apply for asylum here.

You must make your application in person and you should do this as soon as possible after arriving in the United Kingdom. If you delay your application for asylum, it may affect your ability to prove your reasons for it.

If you have arrived in the United Kingdom by travelling through another country within the European Union, or another country we consider to be safe, we may require you to pursue your claim for asylum with the country you travelled through. If this is the case, we will send you back to that country.

You may be detained while we consider your application.

You can make your asylum application at your point of entry to the United Kingdom or, if you are already in the country, to either of our asylum screening units.

Applying at the point of entry

We recommend that you make your application for asylum as you enter the Untied Kingdom.

You can do this at the port or airport by telling the immigration officer at passport control that you wish to claim asylum. The immigration officer will know what needs to be done after you make your application and he/she will help you start the asylum process.

Applying within the United Kingdom

If you wish to claim asylum and are already in the United Kingdom, you can make your application at our asylum screening unit either at Croydon (south of London) or in Liverpool.

By making your application at one of the screening units, you will have started the asylum process.

SCREENING PROCESS

Before you are allocated to your case owner, you will have to go to our asylum screening unit either in Croydon (near London) or in Liverpool. For the addresses of screening units, see How to claim asylum. If you claimed asylum at your port of entry, you will go through a screening process similar to this before being allocated to your case owner, but it will take place at the port.

At the unit, you will be interviewed briefly – we call this part of the process ’screening’. You will be expected to produce your passport or travel document to establish your identity and nationality and to support your application. We will retain this while we make a decision on your application.

We will take your fingerprints, photograph, and any other physical identification information we think is required. This helps us to prevent fraud and multiple applications by the same person.

You will be asked some basic questions about your application. If you have children or other dependants, they should come with you so that they can be included in your application.

We will provide an interpreter if you need one. In special cases, we can provide a male or female interpreter if you prefer one of a specific gender.

At the screening unit, you will normally be given an application registration card, often known as an ARC. This shows you have made an application for asylum and contains your personal details and photograph. For more information about this, and why it is important, see Application registration card.

Employment

You will not normally be allowed to work while we consider your asylum application, except in very limited circumstances. This page explains what those circumstances are.

The majority of asylum applicants are not permitted to work while we consider their application. This is because entering the country for economic reasons is not the same as seeking asylum, and it is important to maintain a distinction between the two.

However, if you have waited longer than 12 months for us to make an initial decision on your asylum application, you may request permission to work. Currently, most new asylum applications receive a decision within 30 days.

If you are given permission to work, you will not be allowed to become self-employed or to do certain types of work.

We will give you permission to work only if you yourself are not responsible for the delay in us reaching an initial decision on your application.

If you are homeless or without money to buy food (we call this ‘destitute’) you may qualify for free housing and financial help. Your case owner will tell you if you qualify for this. For more information, see Asylum support.

If you want to work voluntarily, without being paid, you should speak to your case owner.

It is against the law to beg.

Source: http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/

Filed under: Asylum in the UK, Human Rights, Immigratoin Reform, Justice, Laws, Legal Development, कानून नेपाल

Steps and Time Line of Asylum Process- www.uscis.gov

How Long Does the Process Take?
The time frames below apply only if you will be scheduled for an interview at one of the eight asylum offices. Time frames vary for those who live far from an asylum office because asylum officers must travel to other offices in order to conduct the long-distance interviews.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides in Section 208(d)(5) that the initial interview on asylum applications filed on or after April 1, 1997 should take place within 45 days after the date the application is filed, and a decision should be made on the asylum application within 180 days after the date the application is filed, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

 

Applicant files I-589 at the Service Center

• The filing date is the date the complete application was received at the Service Center.

Within 21 days of the filing date

Applicant receives:

• Receipt notice that USCIS received I-589
• Fingerprint appointment notice
• Interview notice

Within 43 days of the filing date

• Applicant is interviewed at one of the eight asylum offices, unless applicant lives at a significant distance from an asylum office.

Within 60 days of the filing date

• Majority of applicants return two weeks after the interview to pick up the decisions on their application, including referrals to the Immigration Court for final determination

Within 180 days of the filing date

• Applicants whose cases have been referred to the Immigration Court receive a decision on their applications.

Filed under: Asylum in the US, Human Rights, Immigratoin Reform, Justice, Laws, Legal Development, Maoist's Terror, Social Engineering, Young Lawyers, कानून नेपाल

Types and Processes of Asylum Decision-www.uscis.gov

Decisions On Asylum Claims

How Will the Asylum Officer Make the Decision About Whether To Grant Me Asylum?
The Asylum Officer will evaluate your testimony, the information you provide on your application, and any supplementary materials you submit to determine if you are a refugee and whether any mandatory bars apply. The Asylum Officer will consider country condition information from reliable sources and will consider the relevant law found in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the regulations found in Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and case law. The Asylum Officer will also evaluate the credibility of your claim. See 8 CFR § 208.9. When Will I Be Notified About the Decision on My Asylum Claim?
In most cases, you will return to the asylum office where your interview was held two weeks after the interview to pick up your decision. However, there may be longer processing times if you were interviewed at a district office, are currently in valid status, or if your case will be reviewed by Asylum Division Headquarters staff. You will generally receive the decision by mail if any of these circumstances occur. What Will Be My Status After I Am Granted Asylum?
You will have asylee status. You will receive an I-94 Arrival and Departure record documenting that you are able to remain indefinitely in the United States as an asylee. You will be authorized to work in the United States for as long as you remain in asylee status. You may obtain a photo-identity document from USCIS evidencing your employment authorization by applying for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD). You will also be able to request derivative asylum status for any spouse or child (unmarried and under 21 years of age as of the date you filed the asylum application, as long as your asylum application was pending on or after August 6, 2002) who was not included as a dependent in your asylum decision and with whom you have a qualifying relationship. This means that you will be able to petition to bring your spouse and/or children to the United States, or allow them to remain in the United States indefinitely incident to your asylee status. To What Benefits May I Be Entitled After I Am Granted Asylum?
Asylees are eligible to apply for certain benefits, including an Employment Authorization Document (EAD), an unrestricted Social Security card, cash and medical assistance, employment assistance, and a Refugee Travel Document. For more information on the benefits and responsibilities associated with asylee status, see Types of Decisions, Grant of Asylum, or information for asylees on the website of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Can Asylum Status Be Terminated?
Yes. Your asylee status may be terminated if you no longer have a well-founded fear of persecution because of a fundamental change in circumstances, you have obtained protection from another country, or you have committed certain crimes or engaged in other activity that makes you ineligible to retain asylum status in the United States. See INA § 208(c)(2). An asylee is not a lawful permanent resident. You may apply for lawful permanent resident status after you have been physically present in the United States for a period of one year after the date you were granted asylum status. See Asylee Adjustment for more information about becoming a lawful permanent resident. The law can be found at INA § 209(b). What is a Recommended Approval of Asylum?
You will receive a recommended approval of asylum if an Asylum Officer has made a preliminary determination to grant you asylum, but USCIS has not received the results from the mandatory, confidential investigation of your identity and background. If the results reveal derogatory information that affects your eligibility for asylum, USCIS may deny your request for asylum or refer it to an Immigration Judge for further consideration. See Recommended Approval. What is a Conditional Grant of Asylum?
Prior to the passage of the Real ID Act of 2005, applicants who were found eligible for asylum based on past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution solely on account of resistance to a coercive population control (CPC) program were subject to a 1,000-per-year statutory limit on grants of asylum based on CPC, and were given a conditional grant until a final approval authorization number bacame available within the annual 1,000 cap. Section 101(g)(2) of the Real ID Act of 2005 eliminated this annual 1,000 cap, and asylum offices have heen issuing final, as opposed to conditional, asylum approvals to new, qualified applicants whose asylum claims are based solely on CPC, as well as to applicants who had previously been given a conditional grant, provided that they clear background check requirements and otherwise qualify for asylum status. See Resistance to Coercive Population Control (CPC) Programs for more information. What is a Notice of Intent to Deny?
You will receive a Notice of Intent to Deny if you are currently in valid status and found ineligible for asylum. You will have 16 days to provide a response to the letter. The Asylum Officer will then either approve or deny the claim. See Notice of Intent to Deny. What is a Final Denial?
You will receive a Final Denial of your asylum claim if you received a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) and either did not provide a response to the letter within 16 days, or the Asylum Officer determined that the evidence or argument you provided failed to overcome the grounds for denial as stated in the NOID. See Final Denial. What Does It Mean to be Referred to Immigration Court?
This means that the Asylum Officer was unable to approve your asylum application and you are not currently in valid status. You will receive charging documents that place you in removal proceedings in Immigration Court. Your asylum application will be referred to the Immigration Court for an Immigration Judge to decide during the removal proceedings. See Referral to an Immigration Court. Where Can I Find Further Information if My Asylum Claim is Referred to Immigration Court?
The Immigration Courts are located within the Executive Office for Immigration Review at the U.S. Department of Justice. Information about the Immigration Courts can be found at www.usdoj.gov/eoir or you can call their electronic information system at 1-800-898-7180. You will need your A-number to get information on your case. This telephonic information system can give you information about your next hearing date, time and location; elapsed time and status of the clock for asylum cases; Immigration Judge decision information; case appeal information, including appeal due date, brief due date, date forwarded to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and BIA decision and decision date. If the Immigration Judge denies your asylum application, you will receive a notice telling you how to appeal the decision.

Generally, you may appeal within 30 days of receiving the denial. After your appeal form and a required fee are processed, the appeal will be referred to the Board of Immigration Appeals in Washington, DC. For more information, see the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s website at www.usdoj.gov/eoir.

Other

Do I Need to Notify USCIS If I Move?
See How Do I Report a Change of Address to USCIS?You must also notify in writing the local asylum office where you case is pending of any change of address. Please see “Change of Address” on your local asylum office page for more information: Arlington, VA; Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; Los Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; Newark, NJ (Lyndhurst); New York, NY (Rosedale); and San Francisco, CA.

The regulation pertaining to change of address can be found at 8 CFR 265.1.

Special note for class members of the American Baptist Churches V. Thornburgh (ABC) settlement agreement: ABC class members are instructed to follow the same procedures as all other asylum applicants for reporting a change of address. See How Do I Report a Change of Address to USCIS? Please note, on November 30, 2005, the ABC Project Post Office Box was officially closed and use of Form I-855, ABC Change of Address Form, discontinued. Any mail sent to the ABC Project Post Office Box will be returned to sender if the mail contains a return address, or destroyed if it does not. See USCIS Announces New Address Change Procedures for ABC Class Members and Follow-Up Message: USCIS Announces New Address Change Procedures for ABC Class Members (11/30/05).

How Can I Find Out About the Status of My Application?
There are two ways to find the status of a pending asylum application: you may write to the Asylum Office having jurisdiction over your case or you may visit the Asylum Office where your case is pending. You should be prepared to provide the following information:

1. Alien number (“A-Number”)
2. Current legal name and, if different, the name as it appears on the application
3. Nationality
4. Date of birth
5. Current address
6. Date of interview, if applicable

If you are sending your request in writing, you should sign the request and mark your envelope: ATTN: Status Inquiry. The eight asylum offices are located at: Arlington, VA; Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; Los Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; Newark, NJ (Lyndhurst); New York, NY (Rosedale); and San Francisco, CA. Will I Be Able To Petition To Bring My Family To The United States?
If you are granted asylum, you may request derivative asylum status for any spouse or child (unmarried and under 21 years of age as of the date you filed the asylum application was pending on or after August 6, 2002) who was not included in your asylum claim and with whom you have a qualifying relationship. You must submit a Form I-730, Refugee and Asylee Relative Petition, to the Nebraska Service Center, P.O. Box 87730, Lincoln, NE 68501-7730. The Form I-730 must be filed for each qualifying family member within 2 years of the date you were granted asylum status, unless USCIS determines that this time period should be extended for humanitarian reasons. See How Do I Get My Spouse or Children Derivative Asylum Status in the United States? When Can I Apply To Become a Lawful Permanent Resident?
You may apply for lawful permanent resident status under INA § 209(b) after you have been physically present in the United States for a period of one year after the date you were granted asylum status. To apply for lawful permanent resident status, you must submit a separate Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, for yourself and each qualifying family member to the Nebraska Service Center, P.O. Box 87485, Lincoln, Nebraska, 68501-7485. See Asylee Adjustment. Will I Get a Work Permit?
Asylum applicants cannot apply for employment authorization at the same time they apply for asylum. You will be authorized to work in the United States if you are granted asylum and as long as you remain in asylum status. You are also eligible to apply for employment authorization if you have been given a recommended approval or conditional grant of asylum. You can also apply for work authorization before a decision is made on your claim if 150 days has passed since you filed your complete application with the Service Center and no decision has been made on your application. USCIS has 30 days to either grant or deny your request for employment. The application to apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) is the Form I-765. Please see Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and How Do I Get a Work Permit? for more information.

If you are granted asylum before an Immigration Judge and need information on work authorization, see “Notice to Individuals Granted Immigration Benefits by Immigration Judge or Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)”.

Effective November 10, 2002, asylum applicants who have been granted asylum will no longer have to file an EAD application with the Nebraska Service Center in order to obtain an initial EAD. Section 309 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 requires USCIS to issue an employment authorization document containing at least a fingerprint and photograph to an asylee immediately upon a grant of asylum. If an asylee wishes to renew his or her EAD, the asylee will still need to submit an EAD application with the Nebraska Service Center, and pay a fee or request a fee waiver under 8 CFR § 103.7(c). However, asylees are work-authorized regardless of whether or not they are in possession of an EAD. An asylee may want to obtain an EAD from USCIS in order to meet other obligations. For example, the EAD, which is evidence of both identity and employment authorization, can be presented to an employer as a List A document of the Employment Eligibility Verification form (Form I-9). Also, the EAD can serve as evidence of alien registration, which is required by law to be carried by registered aliens at all times.

Can I Travel Outside the United States?
If you are applying for asylum and want to travel outside the United States, you must receive advance permission before you leave the United States in order to return to the United States. This advance permission is called Advance Parole. If you do not apply for Advance Parole before you leave the country, you will be presumed to have abandoned your application with USCIS and you may not be permitted to return to the United States. If you obtain advance parole and return to your country of feared persecution, you will be presumed to have abandoned your asylum request, unless you can show compelling reasons for the return. If your application for asylum is approved, you may apply for a Refugee Travel Document. This document will allow you to travel abroad and return to the United States. For more information on both Advance Parole and Refugee Travel Documents, see How Do I Get a Travel Document? and Form I-131, Application for Travel Document.

How Does the Asylum Program Assure Quality and Consistency in its Asylum Decisions?
The Asylum Program assures the quality of its programs through its Quality Assurance and Training Branch by:

1. conducting a mandatory and comprehensive 5-week training program on asylum law, interviewing skills and analysis (Asylum Officer Basic Training Course) for all incoming asylum officers
2. requiring 100% review of all asylum decisions by a Supervisory Asylum Officer
3. placing one or more Quality and Assurance Trainers in every Asylum Office to conduct training programs, observe asylum interviews, and review decisions
4. setting aside 4 hours every week for in-house training in the asylum offices
5. requiring Asylum Division Headquarters review of certain cases
6. conducting supervisory training programs

Filed under: Asylum in the US, Human Rights, Immigratoin Reform, Justice, Laws, Legal Development, Maoist's Terror, Social Engineering, Young Lawyers, कानून नेपाल

Restore Democracy in Pakistan!!!

 

• Crackdown on the lawyers and bar association by the Pakistani civil and uniformed security personnel is highly condemnable.
• Muhsarraf must step down.
• Stop supporting the Pakistani illegitimate government immediately.
• Reinstate the constitution immediately.
• Reinstate the Chief Justice of Pakistan immediately.
• The attack on rule of law clearly demonstrates the autocratic and tyrannical regime of the military governance of Musharraf.
• The state of emergency must be lifted.
• Democracy must prevail.
• Release Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Aitzaz Ahsan and Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) President Ahsan Bhoon, both of whom were arrested from their residences.
• Release Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Chairwoman Asma Jehangir placed under house arrest.
• Make public the status of detained 1500 lawyers.

Filed under: A Lawless Scoiety, Failed Leaders, Human Rights, Justice, Laws, Legal Development, Social Engineering, Young Lawyers, कानून नेपाल

Asylum for the World’s Battered Women

By ALEX KOTLOWITZ

Published: February 11, 2007

This past fall, a United Nations report denounced the extraordinary number of women who are victims of domestic violence — and for whom protection from the authorities is often nonexistent. In some nations, like Bangladesh and Ethiopia, the U.N. found that as many as 6 of every 10 women interviewed had been beaten or sexually assaulted by their husbands or partners. The report called for better protection for abused women, but it didn’t address how first-world nations like the United States should treat those women who manage to escape their abusers and flee their countries. Should victims of domestic violence be eligible for asylum, a protection that has traditionally been preserved for those persecuted as a result of political turmoil?

At times we’ve said yes; at other times we’ve said no. And in some cases, as with Aruna Vallabhaneni, we’ve just said, hold on until we make up our mind. Vallabhaneni is a tall, distinguished-looking woman who came to the U.S. from Hyderabad, India, in March 1997 on a tourist visa. She in fact had no intention of returning home. She was wed at age 17, through an arranged marriage, to a man who it turned out had a gambling problem and who would regularly demand that Vallabhaneni, who came from a prosperous Hindu family, request money from her parents. When she refused, he beat her. She was once hit so hard that she lost her sense of smell. Another time, she said her husband kicked her with such force that she experienced vaginal bleeding. She did file a complaint with the Indian police, who held her husband overnight, but when he was released, she testified, he beat her so severely that she was hospitalized for two days. She was afraid to report him to the authorities after that. So she ran. She was so desperate to find safety that she left her two children — a son, 12, and a daughter, 10 — with her parents, assuming that they would be able to join her once she arrived in the U.S. and applied for asylum. Her claim, though, was denied.

It is now a decade later, and Vallabhaneni, who lives in Chicago, remains in a kind of suspended animation. On appeal, her case was sent back to the immigration judge for reconsideration, but at the request of her attorney, the judge put off deciding her case until there’s a clearer understanding as to how to treat victims of domestic violence.

It’s not, however, as if the courts and the authorities haven’t already wrestled with this question. The U.N.’s Refugee Convention of 1951, which a majority of countries, including the United States, eventually adopted, established guidelines for deciding who should be offered refuge. Essentially the convention and its subsequent protocols said that individuals with a well-founded fear of persecution for one of five reasons — political opinion, race, religion, nationality or membership in a particular social group — should not be sent back to their home countries. The category “particular social group” was added at the last minute, and so no one is certain of the authors’ original intentions. Sex was not specifically mentioned.

But in the 1990s, U.S. immigration authorities began to recognize sex-based persecution as grounds for asylum. First, the Board of Immigration Appeals took up the asylum claim of a Salvadoran man who feared the guerrillas because he belonged to a taxi-driver cooperative. In rejecting his claim, the board laid out a definition for “social group” that seemed rather straightforward: individuals with immutable characteristics that they can’t change or shouldn’t be asked to change. A short time later, Fauziya Kasinga, who fled Togo because she feared undergoing genital cutting, a cultural practice of her tribe, applied for asylum. The board granted it, ruling that as a young woman and as a member of this particular tribe, she clearly had characteristics she couldn’t change. And, the board ruled, having intact genitalia is “so fundamental to the individual identity of a young woman that she should not be required to change it.”

Then came the jumbled thinking. In 1996, Rodi Alvarado, a young Guatemalan, sought asylum because, she claimed, her husband had brutally beat her and had repeatedly raped and sodomized her. Moreover, the Guatemalan authorities had refused to protect her, saying it was a domestic matter. Like Vallabhaneni, she so feared for her life that she left her children behind and fled to the U.S. There has been profound disagreement among U.S. authorities over how to deal with Alvarado, whose credibility was never in question. An immigration judge granted her asylum, but the government attorneys appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which ruled that Alvarado’s husband didn’t brutalize her because she was a woman but rather because she was his wife. The board ordered her removed to Guatemala. Then Attorney General Janet Reno stepped in, as she was permitted to do, and vacated Alvarado’s deportation order. In her last days in office, Reno also proposed a set of regulations that recognized that a credible claim for asylum could be made based on domestic violence if it was severe and if the country in question was unwilling to do anything about such abuse.

That was more than six years ago. These administrative regulations — despite their support from an unlikely coalition of politicians, from Sam Brownback on the right to Hillary Clinton on the left — have still not been approved. Immigration judges have interpreted this logjam in conflicting ways. There have been grants as well as denials of asylum for domestic-violence victims, and there have been many cases that, like Alvarado’s and Vallabhaneni’s, have been placed in limbo until there’s some clarity about our policy. At a recent gathering with Attorney General Gonzales, immigration judges reiterated their longstanding request for clear regulations so that they’d have some guidance. But there appears to be an impasse. Three years ago, the Department of Homeland Security came out in support of Alvarado’s bid for asylum, but it’s apparent that there has since emerged internal disagreement over how to handle domestic-violence claims. Last month, a D.H.S. spokesman assured me that the agency in conjunction with the Department of Justice “is diligently working on publishing a final rule.” The agency has told reporters this before.

The D.H.S. spokesman told me that before a rule can be issued, there are still “a lot of complex analytical questions to be answered” revolving around how to think about social groups. This, it seems, has been central to the debate: Does beating your wife rise to the level of group persecution? Some argue that a husband brutalizing a wife may do so because he’s a drunk or a bully and not because he wants to beat all women. The upshot, says James Hathaway, the director of the program in refugee and asylum law at the University of Michigan, is that “if you can’t prove intent of the guy with the stick, then you don’t get asylum.” And that, he adds, is pretty hard to do. In immigration circles, this is what’s called the nexus question, which essentially asks asylum seekers: Are you being persecuted on account of your membership in a particular social group? Hathaway points out that some countries, like Britain and Canada, grant asylum if you can show that you’ve been seriously abused and that your government is unwilling to protect you because of your membership in a particular social group, that is, because you’re a woman. In essence, says Hathaway, these nations’ refugee laws consider domestic violence more than just a private matter.

Behind these legal arguments, though, is a practical one, especially in these times when immigration is such a hot political issue. Some believe that if we freely used sex to define a social group, it would open the floodgates to victims of domestic violence, who in many countries, as the U.N. study suggests, can be found in large numbers. Deborah Anker, a clinical professor of law at Harvard, says that such a fear has “always underlined every concern about asylum.” During the cold war, when the U.S. quite readily granted asylum to political dissidents from the Soviet bloc, there were some who worried that tens of thousands of people who were unhappy under Communism would seek refuge in the U.S. It never happened. And Canada, which began granting asylum to victims of domestic violence in 1993, never experienced the surge that critics worried about.

There are a number of reasons that today’s floodgate concerns are a red herring. Asylum seekers need to provide corroboration of their stories, and in the case of domestic violence, that could mean obtaining evidence like hospital records or affidavits from family members (which is what Vallabhaneni provided). They also must be able to show that they can’t get governmental protection from their abusive husbands. What’s more, it is especially difficult for women, who often have little or no resources, to leave their home countries. It has also become more difficult to enter this country post-9/11.

For Harvard’s Anker, the Ping-Pong approach to domestic-violence victims seeking asylum — sometimes yes, sometimes no — is reflective of an immigration system that is marked by inconsistencies. A comprehensive study last year found huge disparities among immigration judges and their rates of approval for asylum seekers. “What I think is at stake,” Anker says, “is whether asylum is going to be governed by a rule of law or whether we go back to an ad hoc, politicized regime,” which it was before the U.S. formally adopted the international standards of refugee law in 1980. Stephen Knight, an attorney with the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law, suggests that it boils down to a rather simple divide: “There are people who just don’t believe that these women are refugees.”

Not long ago, I met Vallabhaneni for coffee. She has been able to secure a work permit, and this was her day off from her job as a customer-service agent for Southwest Airlines at Midway Airport. At one point, she caught me glancing at a bar of milk chocolate that she’d been nibbling on. She laughed. “It makes me sturdy,” she told me, “and I didn’t want to cry in front of you.” She then began showing me photographs of her children, whom she speaks to three times a week and who she told me are now grown and living with her parents. At that point, Vallabhaneni began to tear up. “I feel like I betrayed my children,” she said. “I dream about them almost every day.” But she told me that if she returned home, her family would force her to return to her husband, and she feared that would be the equivalent of a death sentence. I asked her what she would do if in the end she was denied asylum. She had clearly given this a lot of thought and so was ready with her answer. “I can’t go back,” she said.

Alex Kotlowitz, a regular contributor to the magazine, is a writer in residence at Northwestern University. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/magazine/11wwlnidealab.t.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=magazine)

Filed under: Asylum in the US, Human Rights, Immigratoin Reform, Justice, Laws, Legal Development, Nepalese Students, Social Engineering, Young Lawyers, कानून नेपाल

John Grisham…

JOHN GRISHAM

John Ray Grisham* (born February 8, 1955) is a former politician, retired attorney, American novelist and author best known for his works of modern legal drama. In 1977, Grisham received a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting from Mississippi State University. He earned his J.D. degree from the University of Mississippi School of Law in 1981. During law school, Grisham switched interests from tax law to criminal and general civil litigation. Upon graduation he entered a small-town general law practice for nearly a decade in Southaven, where he focused on criminal law and civil law representing a broad spectrum of clients. As a young attorney, he spent much of his time in court proceedings and preparing for court the following morning. In 1983, he was elected as a Democrat to the Mississippi House of Representatives, where he served until 1990. During his time as a legislator, he continued his private law practice in Southaven. He has donated over $100,000 to Democratic Party candidates. In September 2007, Grisham appeared with Hillary Rodham Clinton, his choice for U.S. President in 2008, and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, whom Grisham supports for the U.S. Senate being vacated by Republican John Warner (no relation). Grisham himself had considered challenging former GOP U.S. Senator George Allen, Jr., in the 2006 election in which Allen was narrowly defeated by the Democrat James Webb.  In 1984 at the De Soto County courthouse in Hernando, Grisham witnessed the harrowing testimony of a 12-year-old rape victim. ^[1] In his spare time and as a hobby, Grisham began work on his first novel, which explored what would have happened if the girl’s father had murdered her assailants. He spent three years on A Time to Kill and finished it in 1987. Initially rejected by many publishers, the manuscript eventually was bought by Wynwood Press, which gave it a modest 5,000-copy printing and published it in June 1988. The day after Grisham completed A Time to Kill, he began work on another novel, the story of a young attorney lured to an apparently perfect law firm that was not what it appeared. That second book, The Firm became the 7th bestselling novel of 1991. Grisham then went on to produce at least one work a year, most of them widely popular bestsellers. He has been incredibly successful in that he holds the title for being the sole person to author a number one bestselling novel of the year for seven consecutive years (1994 – 2000). Beginning with A Painted House in 2001, the author broadened his focus from law to the more general rural south, all the while continuing to pen his legal thrillers. Publishers Weekly declared Grisham “the bestselling novelist of the 90s,” selling a total of 60,742,289 copies. He is also one of only a few authors to sell two million copies on a first printing (Tom Clancy is another; J.K. Rowling surpasses them both). Grisham’s 1992 novel The Pelican Brief sold 11,232,480 copies in the United States alone.

Grisham returned briefly to the courtroom in 1996 after a five-year hiatus. He was honoring a commitment he made before he retired from law; he represented the family of a railroad brakeman killed when he was pinned between two cars. Grisham successfully argued his clients’ case, earning them a jury award of $683,500 — the biggest verdict of his career. Another tie to the legal community that he continues to hold is his seat on the Board of Directors for the Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to exonerating the innocent through DNA testing after they have been convicted. On September 28, 2007, Grisham was named in a civil suit in the US District Court, claiming Grisham libeled Pontotoc County, Oklahoma, District Attorney Bill Peterson and Gary Rogers, a former Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation agent. Peterson and Rogers claim that Grisham, along with two other authors, conspired to defame their character through their books. The suit stems from Grisham’s sole non-fiction effort, The Innocent Man, a book about the investigation of a murdered cocktail waitress in Ada, Oklahoma, and how DNA evidence exonerated Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz more than 12 years later.  The Mississippi State University Libraries, Manuscript Division, maintains the John Grisham Room,” an archive containing materials generated during the author’s tenure as Mississippi State Representative and relating to his writings. Grisham’s lifelong passion for baseball is evident in his novel A Painted House and in his support of Little League activities in both Oxford, Mississippi and Charlottesville, Virginia. He wrote the original screenplay for and produced the baseball movie Mickey, starring Harry Connick, Jr.. The movie was released on DVD in April 2004. He remains a fan of Mississippi State University’s baseball team and wrote about his ties to the university and the Left Field Lounge in the introduction for the book “Dudy Noble Field- A Celebration of MSU Baseball.”

Grisham is also well known within the literary community for his efforts to support the continuing literary tradition of his native South. Grisham has endowed scholarships and writer’s residencies in the University of Mississippi’s English Department and Graduate Creative Writing Program, and was the founding publisher of the Oxford American, a ’slick’ magazine devoted to literary writing and famous for its annual music issue, copies of which include a compilation CD featuring contemporary and classic Southern musicians in genres ranging from blues and gospel to country-western and alternative rock. In an October 2006 interview on the Charlie Rose talk show, Grisham stated that he usually takes only six months to write a book and that his favorite author was John le Carré. He lives with his wife, Renée, (née Jones) and their two children, Ty and Shea. The family splits their time between their Victorian home on a farm outside Oxford, Mississippi, and a farm near Charlottesville, Virginia.

Books

• A Time to Kill (1989), ISBN 0-922066-03-5
• The Firm (1991), ISBN 0-385-41634-2
• The Pelican Brief (1992), ISBN 0-385-42198-2
• The Client (1993), ISBN 0-385-42471-X
• The Chamber (1994), ISBN 0-385-42472-8
• The Rainmaker (1995), ISBN 0-385-42473-6
• The Runaway Jury (1996), ISBN 0-385-47294-3
• The Partner (1997), ISBN 0-385-47295-1
• The Street Lawyer (1998), ISBN 0-385-49099-2
• The Testament (1999), ISBN 0-385-49380-0
• The Brethren (2000), ISBN 0-385-49748-2
• A Painted House (2001), ISBN 0-385-47295-1
• Skipping Christmas (2001), ISBN 0-385-50624-4
• The Summons (2002), ISBN 0-385-50382-2
• The King of Torts (2003), ISBN 0-385-50804-2
• Bleachers (2003), ISBN 0-385-51161-2
• The Last Juror (2004), ISBN 0-385-51043-8
• The Broker (2005), ISBN 0-385-51045-4
• The Innocent Man (2006), ISBN 0-385-51723-8‘
• Playing for Pizza (2007) ISBN 0-385-52500-1
• The Appeal (January, 2008)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grisham

* My Inspiration !!!

Filed under: Justice, Laws, Legal Development, Young Lawyers, कानून नेपाल