Human Rights First Condemns Rule that Seeks to Re-Write Refugee Laws, Eliminate Asylum

Deny asylum to refugees who changed planes in another country on their way to the United States simply because they did not apply for asylum en route, even in cases where they know they would not have been safe or protected in that country or that country lacked a functioning asylum system
Deny asylum to refugees who improperly entered the United States despite the fact that a U.S. federal court has already ruled that an asylum ban on such grounds is inconsistent with U.S. law, and even though Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention specifically prohibits penalties for such entry
Deny asylum to a woman who is harmed for resisting men who claim they can rape her or beat her at will, on the grounds that feminism is not political opinion (claims based on resistance to forced abortion would, however, continue to be recognized)
Deny asylum to LGBTQ refugees who pass through transit countries, seek protection due to persecution based on gender, or when fleeing persecution based on laws criminalizing same-sex relationships if an adjudicator deems the laws infrequently enforced
Deny asylum to children who flee to the United States to escape forced conscription by terrorist or other non-governmental armed groups
Deny asylum to refugees persecuted for reporting political activity or collaborating with law enforcement
Deny protection to refugees who have been tortured by a police officer or member of the military, if an adjudicator deems the officer to be a “rogue official”
Allow an immigration judge to deny asylum without a hearing on the grounds that the claim did not appear to meet the new and highly controversial legal requirements imposed by this proposed regulation, or other restrictions already adopted by the Trump administration
Bar refugees from asylum based on firm resettlement even though they were not actually offered permanent residence in another country if an adjudicator decides they somehow “could have” sought some status in that country, regardless of their safety in or ties to that country
Redefine persecution to deny asylum to refugees even though they have been repeatedly detained for their political or religious views or other protected characteristic if an adjudicator deems those detentions “brief” and to rewrite court precedents on when threats constitute persecution
Redefine “political opinion” in ways so poorly written as to be incomprehensible, guaranteeing the denial of many claims eligible for protection under the Refugee Convention and Protocol, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and existing court precedent, as well as years of unnecessary litigation over what exactly this regulation says
Bar refugees from even applying for asylum by increasing the complexity of credible fear screenings, applying the administration’s many new bars to asylum at the preliminary screening stage without sufficient opportunity to prepare or present evidence, and treating a terrified or confused asylum-seeker’s failure to indicate whether or not he or she wants an immigration judge to review the credible fear denial as a refusal of such review
Make it harder for asylum-seekers in expedited removal proceedings to gain the right to apply even for withholding of removal when they have been barred from asylum by this administration’s existing illegal changes to the asylum process
Block asylum seekers from regular immigration court hearings in an attempt to deny them other forms of relief for which they may be eligible
Create new grounds for declaring asylum applications “frivolous,” an extreme sanction that can ban someone from any other immigration relief for life.