Church of England Faces Controversy Over Insincere Conversions to Gain Asylum

 The Telegraph reports on the controversy in Britain over whether the Church of England has been misled into converting Muslim migrants whose only motivation is to claim asylum on the basis of a threat of persecution if they return to their home countries as Christians. The paper reported in part:

The Rt Revd Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, the Bishop of Chelmsford, conceded it was “very difficult” to look into the hearts of converts and be 100 per cent certain that they were genuine.

She acknowledged there had been a “small number” of alleged abuses but said the clergy “do the best they can” and it was “ultimately” the job of immigration tribunals and the Home Office to assess and vet the validity of asylum claims.

Her comments come after robust denials by the Church of England of claims by senior MPs and whistleblowers that clergy have been routinely supporting “bogus” asylum claims and enabled a “conveyor belt” of thousands of asylum seekers to convert.

As reported by Law & Religion UK, questions about this issue were raised in Parliament last week, which in turn led the Archbishop of Canterbury last week to issue a statement (full text) in response, saying in part:

For refugees and those seeking asylum, we simply follow the teaching of the Bible which is to care for the stranger.

It is the job of the Government to protect our borders and of the courts to judge asylum cases. The Church is called to love mercy and do justice....

European Court Says Switzerland Wrongly Denied Asylum To Pakistani Convert To Christianity

In M.A.M. v. Suisse, (ECHR, April 26, 2022) [decision in French], the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of a Pakistani asylee in Switzerland.  The Court's English language press release summarizes the case and its holding:

M.A.M. is a Pakistani national who had converted from Islam to Christianity while in Switzerland, where he had arrived in 2015 and where his asylum request had been rejected.

[T]he ... Court ... held, unanimously, that if the decision to expel the applicant to Pakistan were to be executed there would be a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the absence of an assessment of the risk to which the applicant was exposed on account of the overall situation of Christian converts in Pakistan and of his own personal situation. The Court ruled that the assessment by the Swiss authorities of the risk facing the applicant on account of his conversion to Christianity if he were expelled to Pakistan had been insufficient to uphold the rejection of his asylum request....

[Thanks to @sacrareleges for the lead.]

DHS Issues New Interim Final Rule On Asylum Application Procedures

Yesterday, in a 512-page Release (full text), the Department of Homeland Security adopted an Interim Final Rule (IFR) on procedures for deciding on applications for asylum. It summarized the new rule in part as follows:

The principal purpose of this IFR is to simultaneously increase the promptness, efficiency, and fairness of the process by which noncitizens who cross the border without appropriate documentation are either removed or, if eligible, granted protection. The IFR accomplishes this purpose both by instituting a new process for resolving the cases of noncitizens who have been found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture and by facilitating the use of expedited removal for more of those who are eligible, and especially for populations whose detention presents particular challenges.

Expedited Asylum Procedures Proposed By DOJ and DHS

The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice announced yesterday that they are publishing a 140-page Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (full text) to expedite handling of asylum claims for individuals encountered at or near the border. Asylum may be granted to a noncitizen who shows past, or a well-founded fear of future, persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The NPRM summarizes the proposed changes:

Under the proposed rule, such individuals could have their claims for asylum, withholding of removal ...  or protection under ... the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ... initially adjudicated by an asylum officer within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.... [I]ndividuals who are denied protection would be able to seek prompt, de novo review with an immigration judge....

Supreme Court Rejects Asylum Seeker's Challenge To Limits On Review Of Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, (US Sup. Ct., June 25, 2020) upheld against constitutional attack a provision in the immigration law that prevents applicants for asylum from appealing to federal courts through a habeas corpus petition an immigration judge's conclusion that the applicant lacks a "credible fear of persecution".  The court rejected arguments that the limitation violates the Constitutional ban on suspending habeas corpus and violates due process. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg concurrd, but would limit the holding to the facts of this case. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan dissented. NPR reports on the decision.

DOJ Proposes Changes In Asylum Procedures

The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security announced yesterday that they have submitted to the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (full text) that

will create more efficient procedures for the adjudication of claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) regulations.

Among the bases for asylum are a "well-founded fear of persecution on account of ... religion [or] membership in a particular social group...."   The proposed rule changes would (among other things):

Amend the regulations governing credible fear determinations so that individuals found to have such a fear will have their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT adjudicated by an immigration judge in streamlined proceedings, rather than in immigration court proceedings conducted under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)...

Raise the burden of proof for the threshold screening of withholding and CAT protection claims from “significant possibility” to a “reasonable possibility” standard...

British Tribunal Denies Asylum To Disingenuous Iranian Convert To Christianity

Britain's appellate court that reviews decisions on visa and asylum applications and the right to enter or stay in the UK-- the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber-- has recently issued an interesting decision on how to treat a citizen of Iran who disingenuously converts from Islam to Christianity in Britain in order to create a basis for an asylum claim. In PS (Iran) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (UKUT IAC, Feb. 20, 2020), the court concluded that such aperson does not run a real risk of persecution upon return to Iran, and therefore is not entitled to asylum in the UK. the court said in part:

PS has been out of Iran since 2013; he has claimed asylum on at least two occasions, variously asserting fear as a result of being caught up in the green movement protests, ‘honour’ based violence and latterly on the basis that he had converted to Christianity; he attended church between May 2015 and sometime in 2016 and was baptised after he had been going to that church for about two weeks; he has no known contact with the authorities prior to leaving Iran; he has no known connection with any persons of interest, nor any adverse social media content to be concerned about. He has no known connection with any organisation which could be connected by the Iranian government to the house church movement.  He may be asked to sign an undertaking promising that he will not undertake any Christian activities. There is no reason why PS would refuse. We find that he is likely to be judged to present a negligible risk to the security of Iran. He will be released fairly quickly and we are not satisfied that there is any risk of ill-treatment. PS may be placed under surveillance. Once the authorities are satisfied that he is not attending house church or attempting to contact known Christians he will be of no further interest to the authorities.  Accordingly, we find that PS does not face a real risk of persecution upon return to Iran and his appeal is dismissed. 

The Tribunal also issued a new Country Guidance based on this case. Law & Religion UK reports on the case at greater length.

2nd Circuit Gives Broad Reading To Allow Late Filing of Asylum Application

Normally an application for asylum must be filed within one year of an alien's arrival in the United States. However, an application filed later than that may be considered if the alien demonstrates changed circumstances that materially affect his or her eligibility for asylum.  In Yang v. Barr, (2d Cir., July 2, 2019), a woman born in China applied for asylum ten years after entering the United States on a tourist visa.  The application was filed less than a month after she converted to Christianity, and asserted two grounds for asylum-- fear of persecution because of her Christian religion and a forced abortion in China eight years before she entered the United States. In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the change of circumstances-- her religious conversion-- means that an immigration judge may now consider both her bases for asylum, not just the one related to the conversion.

9th Circuit: Sikh Asylum Applicant Did Not Show Past Persecution

To qualify for asylum as a refugee, an individual must show either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. (8 CFR 1208.13). In Singh v. Barr, (9th Cir., March 25, 2019), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that a citizen of India had shown neither. Amaneep Singh, a Sikh, approached members of the Dera Sacha Sauda at one of their recruitment meetings to stop them from criticizing Sikhism. He was chased out of the event. Two months later Dera Sacha Sauda members encountered Singh alone and beat him.  When Singh approached police, they demanded a 25,000 rupee bribe to help him. the majority concluded:

Because Singh’s evidence showed only that the police demanded a bribe on one occasion, the evidence does not compel a finding that the government was unable or unwilling to control the people who attacked him, and therefore does not compel a finding of past persecution....

Singh’s attackers were part of Dera Sacha Sauda, a small religious minority active in only some regions of India. There is no reason to think that Singh is at future risk from a group with such limited influence because he is a Sikh.

Judge Watford dissented saying in part:

Members of another religious faith told Singh to abandon his religion and join their own. When he refused to disavow his faith, they beat him until he was unconscious, hospitalizing him for two weeks. When he went to the police for help, they refused to help him unless he paid a bribe, which was more than he could afford to pay. The majority errs by concluding that these facts do not establish past persecution.

San Francisco Chronicle reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Will Not Stay Injunction Against Asylum Rule

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order (full text) in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump (stay denied, Dec. 21, 2018), denying a stay of a preliminary injunction against implementation of a Presidential Proclamation and a rule that allow asylum to be granted only to refugees who cross the border at a designated port of entry. (See prior posting). Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh dissented from the denial of the stay.

Court Bars Enforcement of Trump's Limitation on Asylum Seekers

In East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, (ND CA, Nov. 19, 2018), a California federal district court issued a temporary restraining order against implementation of a Presidential Proclamation and implementing rule that allow asylum to be granted only to refugees who cross the border at a designated port of entry.  8 USC Sec. 1158(a) provides:

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival ...), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum....

Focusing on this section and on treaty obligations, the court said in part:

The rule barring asylum for immigrants who enter the country outside a port of entry irreconcilably conflicts with the INA and the expressed intent of Congress. Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden.

A hearing on whether a preliminary injunction should issue in the case was set for Dec. 19.  Washington Post reports on the decision. The decision led to an unusual war of words between President Trump and Chief Justice John Roberts.

9th Circuit: Religious Sect's Attempt to Extort Land and Recruit May Create Basis For Asylum

In Singh v. Sessions, (9th Cir., Nov. 15, 2017), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of appeals held that an immigration judge was incorrect when he rejected claims for asylum and withholding of removal by Harbans Singh who in India had suffered at the hands of the Dera Sacha Sauda which attempted to extort his land and recruit him for membership.  The court held that this could create a sufficient nexus to find religious or political persecution since "Singh’s refusal to join the DSS was inherently an act of religious expression." The court remanded the case for findings on additional issues. India West reports on the decision.

3rd Circuit Judge Questions Religious Mix of Syrian Refugees

In Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (7th Cir., Oct. 21, 2016), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in a Freedom of Information Act case upheld the government's refusal to disclose to an advocacy group for asylum seekers the names of so-called "Tier III terrorist organizations." Judge Daniel Manion filed a concurring opinion with extensive dicta questioning the religious mix of Syrian refugees who have been admitted to the country.  He said in part:

I write separately for a second, critical reason, which is my concern about the apparent lack of Syrian Christians as a part of immigrants from that country. It is possible that our case bears a direct link to this enigma.  It is well‐documented that refugees to the United States are not representative of that war‐torn area of the world. Perhaps 10 percent of the population of Syria is Christian, and yet less than one‐half of one percent of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States this year are Christian.... To date, there has not been a good explanation for this perplexing discrepancy.

This is not to suggest that any refugee group is more or less welcome: quite the contrary. The good people of this country routinely welcome immigrants from all over the world. But in a democracy, good data is critical to public debate about national immigration policy.

The Daily Signal reports on Manion's opinion.

British Parliamentary Group Releases Report On Asylum Claims By Migrants Claiming Religious Persecution

In Britain, the All Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief this week released a 35-page report titled Fleeing Persecution: Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom Grounds. Here is an  excerpt from the Executive Summary:

While the law is clear that religious persecution constitutes grounds for asylum, assessment of religion based asylum applications is complex and challenging due to the inherently internal and personal nature of religion and belief. This is compounded by the fact that persecution on the basis of religion or belief encompasses a wide range of human rights violations and relates to complex dynamics of communal identities, politics, conflicts and radical organisations....

... [T]here is a disparity between Home Office policy guidelines and what is actually happening in practice.... [W]hile it is clear that a lack of understanding of religion and belief is a primary cause of the disparity between good policy guidelines and practices of decision-makers within the UK asylum system, such ignorance might have been formalised through unpublished ‘crib sheets’ given to decision-makers.

Further evidence submitted by a number of stakeholders revealed that Christian and Christian convert asylum seekers are still being asked detailed factual “Bible trivia” questions which is too simplistic a way to judge if an individual is, for example, a genuine convert. Furthermore anecdotal evidence has shown that some people are learning as much as they can so they can be prepared for the Home Office interview.

German Home School Family That Was Denied SCOTUS Review Gets Deferred Status From DHS

Fox News reports that in a surprising development yesterday, one day after the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the home schooling asylum case of Romeike v. Holder (see prior posting), the Department of Homeland Security granted "indefinite deferred status" to the Romeike family.  This means that the German family which home schools its children largely because of the family's Christian religious beliefs will not be deported back to Germany where laws prohibit home schooling.  The Romeike family who moved to Tennessee in 2008 were originally granted asylum in 2010, but government appeals of the immigration judge's ruling led to a reversal.

2nd Circuit: Chinese Asylum Applicant Wrongly Questioned By IJ About Doctrinal Knowledge

In Chang Qiang Zhu v. Holder, (2d Cir., Jan. 23, 2013), the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded for further proceedings the denial by an Immigration Judge of an application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture brought by a Chinese Christian man who claimed religious persecution in China.  The court said in part:

The agency based its credibility determination primarily on Zhu’s testimony concerning his telling of the story of the biblical figure Paul to Chinese authorities during his detention. The agency found that Zhu’s demeanor while testifying was “hesitant” and “evasive” and his account of the story was inconsistent. The record, however, reveals that Zhu’s demeanor began to suffer only when the IJ required him to provide highly detailed information regarding the story of Paul. Indeed, while Zhu was able to explain that Paul was a disciple of Jesus Christ who persecuted Christians, and later converted to Christianity after being blinded on the road to Damascus, he struggled to answer more detailed questions such as what form Paul’s  persecution of Christians took or in what year Paul converted to Christianity. By inquiring of Zhu and expecting him to provide this extensive detail, virtually all of which he testified to accurately in any event, the IJ contravened our holding in Rizal v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 84,90 (2d Cir. 2006), which prohibits relying on a petitioner’s lack of doctrinal knowledge as the basis for an adverse credibility determination or denying relief. 

The court also concluded that neither the Immigration Judge nor the Board of Immigration Appeal adequately considered Zhu's claim of a pattern or practice of persecuting Christians in China. The New York Daily News last week reported on the decision.