Archive

Archive for the ‘Asylum in the US’ Category

Immigration Statistics 2009

April 30, 2010 Leave a comment

Immigration Statistics

get  e-mail updates Get e-mail updates when this information changes

New Releases

Nonimmigrant Admissions to the United States: 2009 (PDF, 10 pages – 485.5 KB)
This report examines the number and characteristics of nonimmigrant admissions in fiscal year 2009.

Data on Nonimmigrant Admissions
Access data on nonimmigrant admissions by class, country, and other characteristics for fiscal year 2009.

Refugees and Asylees: 2009 (PDF, 6 pages – 335 KB)
This report presents information on the number and characteristics of persons admitted as refugees or granted asylum to the United States in fiscal year 2009.

Data on Refugees and Asylees
Access data on persons admitted as refugees or granted asylum in fiscal year 2009 by several characteristics.

Naturalizations in the United States: 2009 (PDF, 4 pages – 320 KB)
This report presents information on the number and characteristics of foreign nationals who became American citizens during fiscal year 2009.

Data on Naturalizations
Access data on persons who became American citizens in fiscal year 2009 by country of birth, state of residence, and other characteristics.

U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2009 (PDF, 6 pages – 401 KB)
This report provides information on the number and characteristics of persons who became legal permanent residents during fiscal year 2009.

Data on Legal Permanent Residents
Access data on immigrants who became legal permanent residents in fiscal year 2009 by class of admission, country of birth, state of residence, and other characteristics.

The 9/11 Terrorist Attacks and Overseas Travel to the United States: Initial Impacts and Longer-Run Recovery (PDF, 13 pages – 988 KB)
This Working Paper examines whether the initial decline and eventual recovery of overseas travel to the United States during the post-9/11 period varied according to sending countries’ participation in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP).

Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009 (PDF, 8 pages – 292 KB)
This report provides estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States as of January 2009 for periods of entry and leading countries of birth and states of residence.

Source: http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/immigration.shtm

Obama Administration opens Asylum for Victim of Domestic Violence under “particular social group”.

December 29, 2009 Leave a comment

Political asylum was granted in October 2009 to a woman, seeking asylum based on domestic violence imposed by her husband.

This decision may prove beneficiary to thousands of women, victims of domestic violence, from developing nations.

Jayne Fleming, a lawyer specializing in asylum at the San Francisco office of the law firm Reed Smith, called the recommendation “a giant step forward.” Advocates and immigration judges, Ms Fleming said, “now have some pretty solid guidelines from D.H.S.” – http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/us/30asylum.html?_r=1#

In 1996, an immigration judge in San Francisco granted her asylum petition, but an immigration appeals court overturned that decision in 1999. In 2001, Attorney General threw out the appeals court decision, but did not grant Ms. Alvarado asylum. In 2004, the Department of Homeland Security, which represents the government in immigration cases, argued for the first time in favor of asylum for her. Attorney General ordered a new review but did not reach a decision. In September 2008, Attorney General sent the case back to the immigration appeals court, encouraging the court to issue a precedent-setting ruling. Such a ruling can come only from an immigration appeals court or a federal court. – http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/us/30asylum.html?_r=1#

Battered Asylum Seekers May Find U.S. Relief

October 21, 2009 Leave a comment

July 22, 2009

by Jennifer Ludden

For more than a decade, U.S. administrations have struggled with whether female victims of domestic violence can qualify for asylum. Now, in a move that could bring the issue closer to resolution, the Obama administration is arguing that yes, it’s possible they can.

In court documents recently made public, a Mexican women identified only as “L.R.” says she was abused repeatedly by her husband starting in 1987. According to the documents, he would put a gun to her head and force her to have sex. The woman’s lawyer, Karen Musalo, says once when her client was pregnant with one of the couple’s three children, her husband set fire to the bed she was in.

“She actually tried to get away from him a number of times by coming to the U.S., and then he came to the U.S. and told her that if she didn’t come back he would kill her family.”

L.R. did go back to Mexico, but came to the U.S. again seeking asylum.

Musalo teaches refugee law at the University of California Hastings College of Law in San Francisco and has long been involved with gender-based asylum. She admits it’s a difficult area. Other asylum seekers must prove a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality or political opinion. But Musalo’s abused Mexican client has to fit into another category.

“She has to meet this sticky, amorphous, confusing legal standard to show that she’s what is called a member of a particular social group,” says Musalo.

That social group is battered women, which is, of course, impossibly broad. But in a legal brief in L.R.’s case, the Department of Homeland Security has laid out how this group could be narrowed.

Musalo says that’s a tall order, but a fair one.

“What she would have to show is that violence against women is pervasive, and that it’s so widely accepted that nobody — neighbors, family members — nobody would intervene or try to stop it, and the government certainly wouldn’t intervene,” Musalo says.

The woman would also have to prove she couldn’t find refuge anywhere else in her home country.

‘Impermissibly Circular’

The DHS stance is based largely on a similar agency brief from 2004 under President Bush. But then-Attorney General John Ashcroft opposed the position, and the cases of other battered women seeking asylum fell into limbo.

“This is a very problematic way to interpret the law,” says Kris Kobach, a counsel to Ashcroft. He now teaches at the University of Missouri. Kobach points out that courts have previously found this definition of persecution to be “impermissibly circular.”

“Basically the battered woman is saying, ‘I’m being persecuted, that is to say, I’m being battered, because I’m a member of a group.’ What’s the group? People who are being battered.” Kobach says.

But the DHS brief explicity addresses this problem, and Musalo says its more narrow definition of this group of asylum seekers will pass court muster.

Kobach says if the Obama administration wants to change policy, it’d be better off going through Congress. A number of countries, including Germany, Spain and Sweden, have passed laws recognizing persecution based on gender or sex. But Kobach has other concerns. He worries courts would get it wrong a lot, ruling on something so private. And he believes it could be hard for courts to appear fair.

“It’s really hard to draw valid distinctions,” Kobach says. “In other words, why do we let this person have a valid asylum claim in the United States but not another person who is in very similar circumstances?”

In a statement, DHS said each case “requires scrutiny of the specific threat,” and the agency is “interested in developing regulations” to help do that.

Musalo’s Mexican client doesn’t go back to court until next spring.

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106829943

Seventh Circuit Rules that Woman’s Claim of Forced Marriage Can Constitute a “Changed Circumstance” for Asylum Consideration

October 21, 2009 Leave a comment

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that a family’s threats to force their daughter into marriage if she returns to their native country of Pakistan qualify as “changed circumstances” under U.S. law and warrant a review of the woman’s asylum case.
“The Seventh Circuit’s decision recognizes that our client’s case should not be dismissed simply because the conditions of her persecution, as in many cases of gender-based violence, are not connected to a dramatic country-wide upheaval,” said Claudia Valenzuela, a managing attorney at Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center who represented asylum seeker Roome Joseph along with pro bono counsel from Mayer Brown LLP.
At the center of the court’s August 27, 2009, opinion in Joseph v. Holder is its recognition that the “changed circumstances” rule under which individuals can seek review of their asylum cases based on new threats of persecution “does not restrict the concept of ‘changed circumstances’ to some kind of broad social or political change in the country, such as a new governing party, as opposed to a more personal or local change.” The court found that any change in an asylum applicant’s home country that materially affects his or her eligibility for asylum is sufficient to qualify as a “changed circumstance” under the law.
Ms. Joseph, 28, came to the United States with her parents and two brothers in 1998 when the family fled religious persecution in Pakistan because of their Christian identity. While the family waited for their asylum application to be processed, Ms. Joseph adapted to U.S. culture and began to live independently. When her family’s asylum application was rejected, Ms. Joseph’s father informed her that he had arranged for her to marry a man in Pakistan, and would disown her if she refused the marriage. As the Seventh Circuit acknowledged, “The stakes are high for Joseph, as in Pakistan she faces either a forced marriage or the prospect of living as a single Christian woman without familial support, a dangerous path in that country.” Ms. Joseph refused to return with her family to Pakistan and she again applied for asylum in the United States.
When Ms. Joseph re-applied for asylum, she cited the threats of forced marriage and persecution she would face as a single woman in Pakistan as “changed circumstances.” The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected this application, stating that the threat of forced marriage was a personal situation that did not qualify as “changed circumstances.”  The Seventh Circuit’s ruling overturned that decision and returned the case to the BIA for a full review of the circumstances of Ms. Joseph’s asylum claim.
Read the court’s opinion

The National Immigrant Justice Center, a partner of Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights, provides direct legal services to and advocates for immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers through policy reform, impact litigation, and public education.

Clearer Rules Urged For Asylum Seekers

October 21, 2009 Leave a comment

System Fails to Protect Women, Study Says

By Tara Bahrampour
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 1, 2009

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093004587_pf.html

Women seeking political asylum in the United States based on gender-related persecution can get mired in a legal labyrinth that can leave their cases unresolved for years, according to a report being released Thursday by the Tahirih Justice Center, a nonprofit group in Falls Church that works to protect immigrant women and girls from violence.

The center is among several advocacy groups calling for congressional legislation or regulatory action by the Obama administration to clarify the status of women fleeing their home countries to escape gender-specific dangers, such as forced marriage, genital mutilation, honor killings and domestic violence.

Tahirih and two other groups held a briefing on the issue Wednesday afternoon at the Rayburn House Office Building, where Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) agreed the system isn’t working.

“There needs to be far more protection for women and girls. . . . We’re punishing the victim, and it really needs to be changed,” Moran said.

Until the system changes, advocates say, there will be more cases such as the one involving a 23-year-old victim of domestic violence from Honduras. The woman, who now lives in Frederick, has strong evidence that she was beaten and stabbed by the man she was living with, a Honduran police officer.

The woman’s lawyers have compiled a thick case file that includes hospital photographs of her face swollen with bruises, and stab wounds on other parts of her body.

Police in Honduras would not take her complaints seriously, and a women’s center there told her nothing could be done. She fled here after the man threatened to kill her, she told U.S. immigration authorities.

In September the woman learned that an immigration judge in Baltimore had refused to grant her political asylum and the benefits that come with it: monetary and medical assistance, job placement and English-language classes. Instead, she was given a more limited Convention Against Torture protection, allowing her to live and work in the United States as long as the threat in Honduras exists.

Victims of domestic violence seeking asylum must prove they would not be safe in their country. Applicants also must be a member of a persecuted race, religion, nationality, political opinion or social group, for example, women in a country where gender-specific violence is tolerated.

In the case of the Honduran woman, “the judge said the domestic violence was not on account of membership in a particular social group,” said Daria Fisher Page, a senior staff attorney at Tahirih.

The woman is appealing the decision, which her supporters say illustrates the system’s shortcomings.

The United States became one of the first countries to make asylum available for victims of gender-based persecution in 1995, but the rules for granting it have never been clear.

In 1996, a woman fleeing genital cutting in Togo was declared eligible for asylum by the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Justice Department body that handles asylum appeals.

The landmark decision provided a precedent for other judges to rule in favor of asylum for gender-based persecution.

But in 1999 the board reversed a grant of asylum to a woman fleeing abuse in Guatemala. (She is still waiting for her case to be resolved.)

The Bush administration never acted on the regulations proposed the next year, in the last days of the Clinton administration, affirming that such women could comprise a social group.

Various judges have issued different rulings on similar cases.

This will continue in the absence of clear regulations, said Karen Musalo, professor at University of California’s Hastings College of the Law and director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies.

This year, the Department of Homeland Security filed a brief in a California case stating that a woman who had been abused by her husband in Mexico was eligible for asylum.

Homeland Security spokesman Matt Chandler said Wednesday that the department “continues to view domestic violence as a possible basis for asylum in the United States.

The issue is highly complex, and we are moving ahead to develop regulations that will address these cases.”

The U.S. government does not keep track of how many women apply for asylum based on gender-related persecution.

Advocates say the numbers remain low, in part because it is so hard for such women to escape their situations and come here.

That belief is shared across the political spectrum.

“Looking at Canada and other countries [that offer such asylum], we don’t see that it opens the floodgates,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, which urged the Bush administration to grant asylum to women fleeing extreme violence.

Besides calling for more sweeping regulations, the Tahirih report recommends removing the one-year deadline for women to file for asylum after arriving in the United States and urges that asylum seekers not be detained.

Must Reads on US Asylum Process

September 20, 2009 Leave a comment
  1. In fiscal year 2007, USCIS received 25,680 affirmative asylum applications and forwarded a copy of each to DOS. DOS and USCIS have determined that the current forwarding process is not an efficient method for the agencies to identify and review cases for which DOS review would yield the most value. To address this problem, this rule permits USCIS, in its discretion, to send affirmative asylum applications to DOS in those cases where USCIS believes DOS would be likely to have information relevant to the applicant’s eligibility forasylum and withholding of removal. Generally, this would be information that is not otherwise available or confirmation of publicly available information, where such validation would be helpful to the adjudication.  Additionally, USCIS and DOS have already implemented an arrangement in which USCIS’s Asylum Division headquarters (HQASM) forwards certain applications to DRL for review and comment. USCIS requires all Asylum Offices to send specific categories of cases to HQASM for further review after the Asylum Office completes its initial interview and preliminary assessment of eligibility. HQASM reviews these cases for quality assurance purposes to ensure that eligibility standards are properly applied. In conducting the quality assurance review, an asylum officer at HQASM seeks DRL comments if the asylum officer believes that DRL could provide information specific to the applicant or the applicant’s situation. This process has proven to be a productive system by which USCIS obtains country conditions information on specific cases. USCIS and DOS intend to maintain this system, which has been in place for several years. DRL applies its country conditions expertise to asylum matters in a  variety of ways, which as a whole are referred to as DRL’s asylum function. Consistent with the regulation currently at 8 CFR  08.11(c), and as will be retained in the amended regulation, DRL responds to requests for comments on cases  pecifically brought to its attention by USCIS’s Asylum Division and by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) immigration judges. DRL also produces updated issue papers or “country profiles” for use in asylum adjudications, and it responds to certain DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s requests for document verification in asylum cases before EOIR. Additionally, DRL is required to provide to Congress annually Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom Reports which provide country conditions information that will continue to be useful to the adjudication of asylum applications. This rule will not alter these DRL functions. This rule also does not affect how USCIS reviews and considers these DRL published reports in asylum adjudications. USCIS will continue to review the aforementioned reports, which provide country conditions information useful to the adjudication of asylum applications. Finally, this rule is limited to 8 CFR 208.11. This rule only addresses submissions of affirmative asylum applications from USCIS to DOS. It does not make any amendments to 8 CFR 1208.11, which governs the defensive application procedure for asylum applications filed by individuals in removal proceedings before EOIR. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-7051.htm
  2. An individual in the United States who meets the definition of a refugee may be granted asylum. The following are bars to a grant of asylum: 1. Persecution of others on account of a protected characteristic 2. Conviction of a particularly serious crime 3. Commission of a serious nonpolitical crime outside the U.S. prior to arrival 4. Reasonable grounds for regarding applicant as a danger to U.S. security 5. Terrorist activities 6. Firm resettlement in another country prior to arrival. http://www.nyc24.org/2008/issue3/story3/images/asylum_process.pdf
  3. Joseph E. Langlois is the Chief of the Asylum Division within the Refugee, Asylum and International Operations Directorate. The mission of the Asylum Division encompasses the management of three main programs:  adjudication of affirmative asylum applications, adjudication of applications for suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal under Section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), and credible fear screenings for those in expedited removal. In addition, Asylum Officers conduct reasonable fear of persecution or torture screenings and travel overseas to interview and process refugees for the Refugee Affairs Division. The Asylum Division guides and oversees the operations of eight asylum offices
    located in Arlington, VA; Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; Los Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; Newark, NJ; New York, NY; and San Francisco, CA. The Asylum Officer Corps consists of approximately 300 Asylum Officers and 60 Supervisory Asylum Officers. Each field office reports to Asylum Division headquarters. The Asylum Division headquarters office is composed of three separate branches. The Operations Branch is responsible for program and procedural development with respect to all programs managed by the Asylum Division, including the affirmative asylum, credible fear, ABC/Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA 203) and reasonable fear programs. The branch develops policy, regulations and procedures and evaluates major Asylum program initiatives. The Management Branch is responsible for oversight of issues related to productivity, logistics and infrastructure. Often coordinating with other Department of Homeland Security and USCIS components, the branch manages finances, statistics, budget, staffing, productivity plans, records, contracts, procurement,
    correspondence, emergency planning, information management, facilities, property, security, labor-management relations and performance appraisal systems. Through its Training, Research, and Quality Branch (TRAQ) the Asylum Division conducts quality assurance, develops training programs and compiles and
    disseminates information on country conditions. TRAQ designs and delivers the mandatory five-week Asylum Officer Basic Training Course for all incoming Asylum Officers. The course covers asylum and refugee law, international human rights law, interviewing techniques, decision-making and decision-writing skills and effective country conditions research skills. http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/asylum_division.pdf


Source: http://www.cis.org/ConflictOverAsylumPolicy

Voluntary Departure vs. Deportation

September 16, 2009 Leave a comment

Voluntary departure is far more beneficial than a deportation. Voluntary departure helps overcome the obstacles to reenter the US such as 3 or 10 year ban provided that the person departed the US within the prescribed time.

Filing an appeal with BIA may allow one to remain until the case decided. If it fails again, a voluntary departure option is given again, on condition that the appeal was filed timely before the expiry of the first voluntary departure time limit.

Typically, the voluntary departure period begins running on the date of the order. However, when a respondent appeals an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to the BIA, the filing of the appeal automatically stays execution of the IJ’s order. See Matter of A-M-, 23 I&N Dec. 737, 744 (BIA 2005) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.6(a)). Thus, while an appeal is pending, the voluntary departure period is not running and a respondent cannot be charged with failing to depart.2 If the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismisses the appeal, the BIA’s general policy is to reinstate the voluntary departure order for the same amount of time initially ordered by the immigration judge.3 See Matter of A-M-, 23 I&N Dec. at 744.

Voluntary departure carries a number of benefits.  First, because it  is not a removal order, leaving the United States under voluntary departure does not result in inadmissibility for ten years under INA § 212(a)(9)(A), because of having been removed from the United States.  In addition, since it is not a removal order, it does not subject a person to reinstatement of removal, should that person subsequently enter the United States unlawfully.  Finally, it allows the individual to leave on his or her own, avoiding the stigma of deportation.  Persons who most benefit from a grant of voluntary departure in lieu of removal are those who will ultimately have to travel abroad to obtain their immigrant visas because they do not qualify for adjustment of status.

On the other hand,  if the respondent is granted voluntary departure and does not leave in a timely manner, there are significant negative consequences, outlined below.

The statutory requirements for voluntary departure are found at INA § 240B, and the regulations are found at 8 CFR § 240.25 and 8 CFR § 1240.26.

Also read:

  1. www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=27503
  2. http://www.massachusettsimmigrationlawyerblog.com/2009/06/why-i-dont-recommend-voluntary.html
  3. http://www.asianjournal.com/immigration/atty-robert-reeves/2029-the-privileges-and-consequences-of-voluntary-departure.html
  4. http://www.refugees.org/uploadedFiles/Participate/National_Center/Resource_Library/Practice%20Adv-%20VD-lac_pa_061705.pdf

This is Not a Legal Advice. Information is based on the sources/links mentioned above.

The Tier III list

August 21, 2009 Leave a comment

Pursuant to INA 212 (a) (3) (B)

B) Terrorist activities-

(i) IN GENERAL.-Any alien who-

(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity,

(II) a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv)),

(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity,

(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of–

(aa) a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the Secretary of State under section 219, or

(bb) a political, social or other similar group whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities,

(V) is a member of a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the Secretary under section 219, or is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this Act, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

(VI) has used the alien’s position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization, in a way that the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities, or

(VII) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this section, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,

(ii) EXCEPTION- Subclause (VII) of clause (i) does not apply to a spouse or child–

(I) who did not know or should not reasonably have known of the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section; or

(II) whom the consular officer or Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe has renounced the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section.

(iii) TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED.-As used in this Act, the term “terrorist activity” means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:

(I) The highjacking or sabotage of
any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).

(II) The seizing or detaining, and
threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.

(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code) or upon the liberty of such a person.

(IV) An assassination.

(V) The use of any-

(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or

(b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.

(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

(iv) ENGAGE IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED- As used in this chapter, the term “engage in terrorist activity” means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization-

(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;

(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;

(III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;

(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for–

(aa) a terrorist activity;

(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization’s terrorist activity;

(V) to solicit any individual–

(aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this clause;

(bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization’s terrorist activity; or

(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training–

(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;

(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;

(cc) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act would further the organization’s terrorist activity.

This clause shall not apply to any material support the alien afforded to an organization or individual that has committed terrorist activity, if the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, concludes in his sole unreviewable discretion, that this clause should not apply.

(v) REPRESENTATIVE DEFINED.-As used in this paragraph, the term “representative” includes an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization, and any person who directs, counsels, commands, or induces an organization or its members to engage in terrorist activity.

(vi) TERRORIST ORGANIZATION DEFINED- As used in clause (i)(VI) and clause (iv), the term ‘terrorist organization’ means an organization–

(I) designated under section 219;

(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (iv), or that the organization provides material support to further terrorist activity; or

(III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in the activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (iv).

Tier III group

USCIS has placed on hold the following categories of aliens for which exemptions are not yet available (and the only ground for referral or denial is a terrorist-related inadmissibility provision): (1) an alien associated with 1 of the 10 named groups benefitted by the CAA who would remain inadmissible despite the CAA’s “automatic relief” provision; (2) an alien who is inadmissible under the Act’s terrorism provision based on activity associated with a Tier III group not under duress; (3) an alien who is inadmissible under the terrorism-related provisions of the Act, other than material support, based on any activity or association with a Tier I, II, or III Group that was under duress; (4) a voluntary provider of medical care to any Tier I, II, or III organizations, to their members, or to individuals who have engaged in terrorist activity; and (5) an alien who is inadmissible as the spouse or child of aliens described above, whether or not the aliens have applied for an immigration benefit.

The Tier III list, comprises of 8 (or 10 groups?) groups per USCIS-Memo-Processing-of-Asylum-Division-Cases-Involving-Material-Support published on June 1, 2007. See: http://www.ansarilawfirm.com/docs/USCIS-Memo-Processing-of-Asylum-Division-Cases-Involving-Material-Support.pdf

CAA § 691(b), 121 Stat. at 2365. The 10 named groups that benefitted from the CAA’s “automatic relief” provision as well as from the Secretary’s June 2008 exercise of authority are: Karen National Union/Karen National Liberation Army (“KNU/KNLA”); Chin National Front/Chin National Army (“CNF/CNA”); Chin National League for Democracy (“CNLD”); Kayan New Land Party (“KNLP”); Arakan Liberation Party (“ALP”); Tibetan Mustangs; Cuban Alzados; Karenni National Progressive Party (“KNPP”); and groups affiliated with the Hmong and Montagnards. See also Matter of S-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 475 (BIA 2008). On July 1, 2008, Congress added the African National Congress to the previously named groups. See Pub. L. No. 110-257, 122 Stat. 2426 (2008).

See: http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/ILA-Newsleter/ILA%20Vol%202/vol2no12.pdf

Pub. L. No. 110-257, 122 Stat. 2426 (2008) is available at:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/past/110-second-session.txt

You may also want to see:
http://www.rcusa.org/uploads/pdfs/LIRS%20Q&As%20on%20terrorism-material%20support,%208-13-08.pdf

Here’s one more:
http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/08130-asy-new-amendmensts-ina.pdf

My finding: CPN-M does not make it to the Tier III organisation. It comes under TEL and FTO.

The following groups of concern have not been designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations under 8 USC Section 1189, although many have been designated under other U.S. Government counterterrorism authorities.

Al-Badhr Mujahedin (al-Badr)
Al-Ittihad al-Islami (AIAI)
Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB)
Anti-Imperialist Territorial Nuclei (NTA)
Army for the Liberation of Rwanda (ALIR)
Cambodian Freedom Fighters (CFF)
Communist Party of India (Maoist)
Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)/United People’s Front

See: Page 47 at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65479.pdf

Individual aliens providing support to or associated with TEL-designated organizations may be found “inadmissable” to the U.S., i.e., such aliens may be prevented from entering the U.S. or, if already in U.S. territory, may in certain circumstances be deported. Examples of activity that may render an alien inadmissible as a result of an organization’s TEL designation include:

* membership in a TEL-designated organization;
* use of the alien’s position of prominence within any country to persuade others to support an organization on the TEL list;
* solicitation of funds or other things of value for an organization on the TEL list;
* solicitation of any individual for membership in an organization on the TEL list; and
* commission of an act that the alien knows, or reasonably should have known, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material for financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training to an organization on the TEL list.

(It should be noted that individual aliens may also found inadmissible on the basis of other types of terrorist activity unrelated to TEL-designated organizations; see 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B).)

See: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123086.htm

Releases > Terrorism Designations>Terrorist Exclusion List

Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
December 29, 2004

Section 411 of the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 (8 U.S.C. § 1182) authorized the Secretary of State, in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General, to designate terrorist organizations for immigration purposes. This authority is known as the “Terrorist Exclusion List (TEL)” authority. A TEL designation bolsters homeland security efforts by facilitating the USG’s ability to exclude aliens associated with entities on the TEL from entering the United States.

Designation Criteria

An organization can be placed on the TEL if the Secretary of State finds that the organization:

* commits or incites to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
* prepares or plans a terrorist activity;
* gathers information on potential targets for terrorist activity; or
* provides material support to further terrorist activity.

Under the statute, “terrorist activity” means any activity that is unlawful under U.S. law or the laws of the place where it was committed and involves: hijacking or sabotage of an aircraft, vessel, vehicle or other conveyance; hostage taking; a violent attack on an internationally protected person; assassination; or the use of any biological agent, chemical agent, nuclear weapon or device, or explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property. The definition also captures any threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of these activities.

Designation Process

The Secretary of State is authorized to designate groups as TEL organizations in consultation with, or upon the request of the Attorney General. Once an organization of concern is identified, or a request is received from the Attorney General to designate a particular organization, the State Department works closely with the Department of Justice and the intelligence community to prepare a detailed “administrative record,” which is a compilation of information, typically including both classified and open sources information, demonstrating that the statutory criteria for designation have been satisfied. Once completed, the administrative record is sent to the Secretary of State who decides whether to designate the organization. Notices of designations are published in the Federal Register.

Effects of Designation

Legal Ramifications

Individual aliens providing support to or associated with TEL-designated organizations may be found “inadmissable” to the U.S., i.e., such aliens may be prevented from entering the U.S. or, if already in U.S. territory, may in certain circumstances be deported. Examples of activity that may render an alien inadmissible as a result of an organization’s TEL designation include:

* membership in a TEL-designated organization;
* use of the alien’s position of prominence within any country to persuade others to support an organization on the TEL list;
* solicitation of funds or other things of value for an organization on the TEL list;
* solicitation of any individual for membership in an organization on the TEL list; and
* commission of an act that the alien knows, or reasonably should have known, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material for financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training to an organization on the TEL list.

(It should be noted that individual aliens may also found inadmissible on the basis of other types of terrorist activity unrelated to TEL-designated organizations; see 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B).)

Other Effects

1. Deters donation or contributions to named organizations.
2. Heightens public awareness and knowledge of terrorist organizations.
3. Alerts other governments to U.S. concerns about organizations engaged in
terrorist activities.
4. Stigmatizes and isolates designated terrorist organizations.

Background

Secretary of State Colin Powell, in consultation with the Attorney General, designated the following organizations, thereby placing them on the Terrorist Exclusion List (TEL). Ten groups were added to the TEL on April 29, 2004.

Terrorist Exclusion List Designees (alphabetical listing)

* Afghan Support Committee (a.k.a. Ahya ul Turas; a.k.a. Jamiat Ayat-ur-Rhas al Islamia; a.k.a. Jamiat Ihya ul Turath al Islamia; a.k.a. Lajnat el Masa Eidatul Afghania)
* Al Taqwa Trade, Property and Industry Company Ltd. (f.k.a. Al Taqwa Trade, Property and Industry; f.k.a. Al Taqwa Trade, Property and Industry Establishment; f.k.a. Himmat Establishment; a.k.a. Waldenberg, AG)
* Al-Hamati Sweets Bakeries
* Al-Ittihad al-Islami (AIAI)
* Al-Manar
* Al-Ma’unah
* Al-Nur Honey Center
* Al-Rashid Trust
* Al-Shifa Honey Press for Industry and Commerce
* Al-Wafa al-Igatha al-Islamia (a.k.a. Wafa Humanitarian Organization; a.k.a. Al Wafa; a.k.a. Al Wafa Organization)
* Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB)
* Anarchist Faction for Overthrow
* Army for the Liberation of Rwanda (ALIR) (a.k.a. Interahamwe, Former Armed Forces (EX-FAR))
* Asbat al-Ansar
* Babbar Khalsa International
* Bank Al Taqwa Ltd. (a.k.a. Al Taqwa Bank; a.k.a. Bank Al Taqwa)
* Black Star
* Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (a.k.a. CPN(M); a.k.a. the United Revolutionary People’s Council, a.k.a. the People’s Liberation Army of Nepal)

See more of the list at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/list/

America’s promise to protect asylum-seekers gets lost in the paperwork

November 24, 2008 Leave a comment

By Lisa Rab

For complete story : http://www.westword.com/content/printVersion/914372

Eleven years ago, Peter arrived in America, desperate for a place to hide.In his native Uganda, he had been a rebel, a human-rights activist who fought for a multi-party system in a country ruled since 1986 by a one-party regime. Peter, who did not want his real name printed for fear of retribution, had worked to motivate young people to join the opposition Conservative Party. He’d driven people to rallies and tried to educate them about their political rights.

In September 1997, he was driving with his boss, the director of a Ugandan human-rights organization, when government soldiers arrested them at a roadblock. Peter was taken to a place the soldiers called a “safe house” — a military barracks not part of the regular justice system in Uganda. Here, people suspected of supporting political enemies of the regime were tortured in secret. Peter says he was detained without trial, beaten and tortured for a month.

While he was there, Peter says, his father, another longtime activist, was arrested and fatally stabbed with a bayonet. His mother, already suffering from heart and blood-pressure problems, couldn’t bear the loss of her husband and son at the same time. She died within a week. Peter, who was thirty then, missed both of their funerals.

Eventually, he managed to escape from the prison and use his political connections to obtain a visa and a ticket to safety the United States.

NY Asylum Judges Rating :: NY Times & Bibdaily

October 27, 2008 Leave a comment

New Ruling by Attorney General Mukasey May Endanger Rights of Women Asylum Seekers

October 27, 2008 Leave a comment

New Ruling by Attorney General Mukasey May Endanger Rights of Women Asylum Seekers
“In a move that could change the course of protection of women asylum seekers across the country, Attorney General Michael Mukasey certified the case of Guatemalan asylum seeker, Matter of R-A- , to himself, overruling the decisions of two prior Attorneys General, Janet Reno and John Ashcroft. The case involves the claim for asylum of Rodi Alvarado, who fled Guatemala after suffering more than a decade of brutal domestic violence in a situation where neither the police nor the courts responded to her pleas for protection. According to Professor Karen Musalo, Ms. Alvarado’s attorney and director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at U.C. Hastings, the case has been on hold since 2001. “Though we are glad to see some movement in the case, I am worried that that the current Attorney General is less sympathetic than his predecessors to the protection of women asylum seekers who flee brutal forms of persecution in countries where their governments will not protect them.”” CGRS, Oct. 2008.

Source: http://bibdaily.com/index.cgi

American Gateways

October 21, 2008 Leave a comment

PAPA is becoming American Gateways!
After 21 years of non-profit service providing free and low cost legal aid to Central Texas immigrants, PAPA, the Political Asylum Project of Austin, is changing its name to American Gateways. Please join us as we host a premier launch party to celebrate this exciting new era of non-profit excellence.

More at:

american20gateways20launch20party

Source: http://bibdaily.com/pdfs/American%20Gateways%20Launch%20Party.pdf

Nepal’s August 2008 Flood – 50,000 Displaced – 2000 dissappeared !

August 22, 2008 Leave a comment

RIPARIAN WATER RIGHTS

Riparian water rights[1] (or simply riparian rights) is a system of allocating water among those who possess land about its source. It has its origins in English common law. It is used in the United Kingdom and states in the eastern United States. Under the riparian principle, all landowners whose property is adjacent to a body of water have the right to make reasonable use of it. If there is not enough water to satisfy all users, allotments are generally fixed in proportion to frontage on the water source. These rights cannot be sold or transferred other than with the adjoining land, and water cannot be transferred out of the watershed. Riparian rights include such things as the right to access for swimming, boating and fishing; the right to wharf out to a point of navigability; the right to erect structures such as docks, piers, and boat lifts; the right to use the water for domestic purposes; the right to accretions caused by water level fluctuations. Riparian rights also depend upon “reasonable use” as it relates to other riparian owners to ensure that the rights of one riparian owner are weighed fairly and equitably with the rights of adjacent riparian owners. In the western United States, water rights are generally allocated under the principle of prior appropriation, which is derived from Spanish law and treats water as a resource unrelated to land.

NON-MAINTENANCE OF KOSHI DAM

‘Non-maintenance by India led to Koshi havoc’: A high-level government team that inspected areas devastated by the flooded Koshi River has held India responsible for the havoc. The devastation took place as the Indian side did not carry out repair and maintenance work on the Koshi barrage and the embankment along the river, thereby violating the Nepal-India Koshi agreement, said top officials. India is entirely responsible for repair and maintenance work and operation of the barrage, as per the bilateral agreement signed in 1954. “Every year in the past the Indian side used to do at least some maintenance work. But this year they did not carry out the repairs,” Khom Raj Dahal, Deputy Director General of the Department of Water Induced Disaster Prevention (DWIDP), told the Post. “This was the main reason why the Koshi breached the embankment and submerged about 10,000 hectares of cultivated land and villages.” The Indian side used to contact the Regional Directorate of the Department of Irrigation (DoI) in Biratnagar. The DoI plays a facilitating role as and when requested by the Indian teams. “But, this year they did not contact the DoI regional office” Dahal said[2].

POURING FOREIGN AID

After the government’s call for support to the floods victims of Sunsari, relief aid continues to pour in from national and international communities. The European Commission announced a total of 1 million Euros (Rs 103 million) as the humanitarian aid for victims of Koshi floods Friday. Food aid and nutritional support will be provided to the victims through the fund, which will be channeled through the European Commission Humanitarian Aid department, ECHO, under the responsibility of Commissioner Louis Michel. This assistance will target up to 50,000 people displaced by the floods, who will receive emergency food aid and the most vulnerable will benefit from nutritional support through the World Food Programme, a statement by EU said. Similarly, the secretaries and staffs of the ministry of peace and reconstruction also announced to lend financial support. The secretaries will give their three-day salary while other staffs will spare their one day’s earning. The staffs of the home ministry contributed over Rs 100,000 and Nepal Telecom contributed Rs 3 million to the prime minister’s trust for natural calamities[3].

THE WATER TREATIES AND NEPAL’S POSITION

Nepal‘s freshwater resources flowing down from the Himalayan heights have attracted the attention of various powerful quarters. While the upper co-riparian country, China, has not posed any major problem for Nepal’s water resources, the signing of the first water sharing treaty with India, the Kosi Agreement, 1954, based on unequal provisions, set the tone for gradual colonisation of Nepali waters by India. The second Gandak Agreement, signed in 1959, was also based on unequal benefit-sharing provisions. The net benefits to Nepal from these treaty-based huge barrages are predictable: enormous floods during monsoon and dry spells during winter. The benefit of electricity is virtually non-existent. These two agreements form the basis of the so called ‘anti-Indian’ sentiments among a large section of the people of Nepal, using which all the Communist parties have built their political base. These agreements were signed when the Nepali Congress (NC) was in power or sharing power with the monarchy. Since then, NC has never recovered from the image of being a ‘pro-Indian agent’ selling Nepal’s precious rivers and waters in order to remain in power in Kathmandu. Indeed, a bigger sell-out was the signing of the Mahakali Integrated Development River Treaty in 1996, the cancellation of which was one of main highlights of the 40-point demand by the Maoists before launching the People’s War in 1996. The CPN (UML), then considered a revolutionary party, lost its political base after approving the Mahakali Treaty. It was humbled in the recent elections. UML general secretary, Madhav Nepal, paid a heavy price by losing from two constituencies. Nepal claimed that the Mahakali Treaty stood as a benchmark in Nepal-India relations. But he did not mention why the treaty provisions have not been implemented even after 12 years. If it all had gone well, the Pancheshwar Dam should have been built four years ago and Nepal should have been receiving billions in benefits and royalty as claimed by another defeated UML heavyweight KP Oli. Many in Nepal believe that the controversial Tanakpur and Mahakali treaties are the main factors behind the murders of the then UML leaders Madan Bhandari and Jivaraj Ashrit, who were opposed to these unjust arrangements. Nepal’s three major beautiful rivers are already gone. India has already gained consumptive rights of water use. The only major river basin still left was about to be taken by the now dead Enron – the Karnali River – with the mega Karnali-Chisapani dam proposed over it. Indian and Russian competitions are underway to grab the license for its construction. The Saptakoshi High Dam and other proposals are underway. Indian companies have won the license for lucrative dam projects in Nepal – Arun III and Upper Karnali. Australian multinational Snowy Mountain Engineering Corporation (SMEC) has won the licence for the West Seti project, from which India will get free water through Karnali and 90 per cent cheap electricity. However, Nepal will continue to live in darkness. Now, all eyes are set upon the Maoists. The challenges before the Maoist-led government are inevitable: these unequal treaties should be reviewed/nullified and new arrangements should be made on the basis of principles of international water laws and practices. The licensing of Arun III, Upper Karnali and West Seti projects could be withdrawn leading to open and competitive biddings. Before that, Nepal’s primary right to use electric power domestically and the guarantee of lower-riparian benefits should be ensured. As for the unilateral embankments constructed in the Tarai, will they be broken or re-evaluated? If the Maoist leaders fail to bring any fundamental shift in Nepal-India water relations, which includes reviewing the controversial 1950 treaty of peace and friendship, they will be considered as no different from other parties. Undoubtedly, we need India and its support – but at what cost to the Nepali people[4]?

RESPONSIBILITIES

Further, India has been guilty of reneging on the agreement in other ways as well. For instance, according to the terms of the agreement, India is responsible for the maintenance, cleaning and siphoning of the barrage. However, in the last 20 years India has not performed this duty seriously and sincerely. Nepali people have been victimised by this severe negligence[5]. Nepal and India signed the Mahakali Treaty in 1996, but despite ratification by the Nepalese parliament, the Treaty has remained stalled. Despite these treaties, serious differences over water sharing, water management and hydropower projects continue to spoil relations between India, on the one hand, and Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal, on the other. Differences between India and Pakistan continue to create ill will between the two on around 11 large hydroelectric projects India plans to construct, including the Baglihar Project, over which Pakistan has sought the appointment of a neutral expert by the World Bank after the failure of talks. More than the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir, the issue of the waters of Jhelum and Chenab has the potential to once again provoke people in Pakistan against India and push the two countries to war. Dr Mubashar Hassan has given a sound proposal to resolve the dispute over Baglihar. He has proposed to install telemeters on the Baglihar to monitor daily release of water in order to ensure due supply of water from the Baglihar Dam to Pakistan. Bangladesh, which shares 54 rivers with India as a lower riparian, has serious differences with New Delhi that hinder agreement on eight rivers, besides the continuing complaints by Dhaka over sharing of the waters of the Ganges. The Indian plan, which is now under review, to build a big river-linking-project that includes diversion of water from Ganges and Brahmaputra, has become yet another source of antagonism between the two countries, which have not been able to sort out their differences over a whole range of issues that continue to fuel political tension which, in turn, does not allow the resolution of differences over water. As an upper riparian, Nepal has a different relationship with India and faces many problems in constructing its dams due to opposition by the lower riparian and has serious doubts about the projects proposed by India. Nepal’s mistrust, beside other factors, has been reinforced by what it perceives to be various unequal treaties — starting from the construction of the Sharada Dam (1927), the 1950 Treaty and the Letters of Exchange of 1950 and 1965, thee Koshi Agreement (1954), the Gandak Agreement (1959), the Tanakpur Agreement (1991) and the Mahakali Treaty (1996)[6].

KOSHI MULTIPURPOSE PROJECT [7] : THE REASON FOR THE FLOOD

The proposed dams in Nepal are in news again and the discussions over the issue is stale. Jagadanand, then Water Resource Minister of Bihar, asserted in Bihar Vidhan Sabha (22nd July 2002), ‘…Sir, the last point, no discharge control-no flood control. Unless the discharge is controlled, the scientists all over the world are convinced that the floods cannot be controlled…Embankments do not control the discharge, they can, at best, prevent water from spreading. Weak embankments cannot hold uncontrolled discharge and the flood will continue to bother us as a natural calamity. If we want to control floods in this state, we will have to control discharge in the upper riparian states and the neighboring countries. We have had negotiations with them and have unanimously agreed that to proceed jointly.’ In reply to a call attention motion of Ram Vilas Paswan regarding floods in Bihar, Arjun Charan Sethi, Minister of Water Resources at the Center told the Lok Sabha, on the 22nd August 2003, ‘…So far as Bihar is concerned, we are having constant interaction with the Government of Nepal because we all know these rivers originate from Nepal. Unless we have any kind of agreement with Nepal, this problem cannot be solved. The proposal for setting up of the Joint Project Office in Nepal for taking up field investigations and preparation of Detailed Project Report has since been approved. 100 officials from Nepal, and 42 officials from India are to carry out field investigations and studies. The project will inter alia have 269 meters high dam with an installed capacity of 3,300 MW and irrigation benefits accruing both to India and Nepal. In addition to Kosi Multipurpose Project, it will include Sun Kosi Diversion scheme as well.’ Similar statement was made by Priya Ranjan Das Munshi, Central Minister of Water Resources, made a statement in Kishanganj on the 5th June in 2004. Jay Prakash Narayan Yadav, State Minister of Water Resources at the Center on the 24th June 2004, while talking to the press in New Delhi said that a sum of Rs. 29 Crores has been sanctioned for the construction of the Kosi High Dam (He must have meant that it was for the preparation of the DPR). As far as Barahkshetra Dam is concerned, the politicians in India are sticking to the same statement that dialogue with Nepal is on and on this is since 1947. Jay Prakash Narayan Yadav reiterated his statement again in 2005. The joint team is working in Nepal for the preparation of the DPR but its personnel are tight lipped over what they are going to propose and when. The ghost of the Barahkshetra Dam haunts the planners, engineers and the politicians ever since the embanking plans of the Kosi was rejected in favor of a large dam by the Central Government in 1946 and the statements like the one given by Jagadanand, Arjun Charan Sethi, Das Munshi or Jay Prakash Narayan Yadav are a matter of routine in the flood season. The annual report of Water Resources Department of Bihar (2006-07) has already completed the formality of suggesting that the solution to the flood problems of Bihar lies in building dams in Nepal and wants the Center to expedite the negotiations. These negotiations are, however, going on for the past 60 years. The factual position about these dams is that they are no way linked to flood control and the flood victims of North Bihar have been systematically fooled over years and they will suffer indefinitely at the hands of the politicians, engineers and the vested interests that are dangling carrots of these dams for decades. Here is the reason, why. There are three dams that often come as proposal to solve north Bihar problems. These are the Chisapani on the Kamla, the Nunthore dam on the Bagmati and the Barahkshetra on the Kosi. The Report of the Second Irrigation Commission of Bihar (1994) spells very clearly that there is no flood cushion provided in the proposed Chisapani Reservoir on the Kamla. (Vol. V, Part -1, p-511). A Report of the Expert Committee to study impact of interlinking of river on Bihar (April 2005, Chapter III, p-16) says, ‘…But the proposed Sapta Kosi Dam too has not been provided with any flood cushion which should be provided for flood moderation…’ Regarding the proposed Nunthore Dam on the Bagmati, the Second Bihar Irrigation Commission Report says, ‘…it appears clearly that even after the construction of dam at Nunthore, there would be no appreciable flood moderation in the middle and lower reaches of the Bagmati and obviously further supplementary floods managements measures would be needed’ (Vol. V Part-1, p-414). A recent report of WRD of GoB (May 2006) observes that ‘…but none of these schemes could come up as yet, and in near future also there is little hope of execution of these schemes (Chapter-V, p-1).’ Thus, there is neither any flood cushion provided in the design of the proposed dams nor is there any likelihood of the dams being built in near future[8].

BASED ON COMPILATION OF PUBLISHED NEWS AND ARTICLES AVAILABLE ON INTERNET. THE SOURCES HAVE BEEN DULY CITED.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_water_rights

[2] http://ekantipur.com/

[3] http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2008/aug/aug22/news06.php

[4] http://www.wiserearth.org/resource/view/170bb5be943f13d859de7fd3e39f757b

[5] http://www.wafed-nepal.org/form.html

[6] http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2005/others/guestcolumn/guest_columns_apr05_5.php

[7] http://www.indiawaterportal.org/blog/index.php/2007/06/

[8] http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2007/07/1034

A MUST LISTEN PROGRAM ON KQED 88.5 FM on ASYLUM PROCESS

August 22, 2008 Leave a comment

Sat, Aug 23, 2008 — 1:00 PM

American Purgatory: Political Asylum In the Age of Terrorism

American Purgatory: Political Asylum In the Age of Terrorism — Asylum seekers are often wary of talking publicly about their experiences, which is one reason why their stories are often left untold. American Purgatory, told through the eyes of an asylum applicant is a rare look into the asylum process from start to finish. The documentary takes listeners into the process of applying for asylum through the eyes of “H”, an asylum seeker from a former Soviet country who came to New York in 2005.

Recently on Radio Specials:

Thu, Aug 21, 2008 — 2:00 AM
American Purgatory: Political Asylum in the Age of Terrorism

American Purgatory: Political Asylum in the Age of Terrorism — Asylum seekers are often wary of talking publicly about their experiences, which is one reason why their stories are often left untold. “American Purgatory” is a rare look into the asylum process from start to finish, through the eyes of a former Soviet Union resident who came to New York in 2005.
Audio currently not available for this program.

Wed, Aug 20, 2008 — 8:00 PM

American Purgatory: Political Asylum In the Age of Terrorism American Purgatory: Political Asylum In the Age of Terrorism — Asylum seekers are often wary of talking publicly about their experiences, which is one reason why their stories are often left untold. American Purgatory, told through the eyes of an asylum applicant is a rare look into the asylum process from start to finish. The documentary takes listeners into the process of applying for asylum through the eyes of “H”, an asylum seeker from a former Soviet country who came to New York in 2005.

Ninth Circuit on “other serious harm”

August 20, 2008 Leave a comment

“The BIA erred in failing to determine whether, assuming the truth of Sowe’s testimony that he witnessed his parents’ murder, the severing of his brother’s hand, and his sister’s kidnaping, he provided compelling reasons for his being unwilling or unable to return to Sierra Leone. Because we lack the authority to act as fact- finders, or to determine credibility in the first instance, we must remand to the BIA the question whether Sowe is eligible for asylum pursuant to section 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A).” Sowe v. Mukasey, Aug. 19, 2008.

Source:www.bibdaily.com

Categories: Asylum in the US
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.