{ "id": "R41753", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R41753", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 389202, "date": "2011-06-29", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T00:44:33.860968", "title": "Asylum and \u201cCredible Fear\u201d Issues in U.S. Immigration Policy ", "summary": "Foreign nationals seeking asylum must demonstrate a well-founded fear that if returned home, they will be persecuted based upon one of five characteristics: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Foreign nationals arriving or present in the United States may apply for asylum affirmatively with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security after arrival into the country, or they may seek asylum defensively before a Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) immigration judge during removal proceedings. \nAsylum claims ebbed and flowed in the 1980s and peaked in FY1996. Since FY997, affirmative asylum cases decreased by 79% and defensive asylum claims dropped by 53% by FY2009. Asylum seekers from the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC) dominated both the affirmative and defensive asylum caseload in FY2009. Five of the top 10 source countries of asylum seekers were Western Hemisphere nations in FY2009: Haiti, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Colombia. Ethiopia was the only African nation that was a top source country for asylum seekers in FY2009. Despite the general decrease in asylum cases since the enactment of the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA ) in 1996, data analysis of six selected countries (the PRC, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, and Mexico) suggests that conditions in the source countries are likely the driving force behind asylum seekers.\nRoughly 30% of all asylum cases that worked through USCIS and EOIR in recent years have been approved. Affirmative asylum cases approved by USCIS more than doubled from 13,532 in FY1996 to 31,202 in FY2002, and then fell to the lowest point over the 14-year period\u20149,614\u2014in FY2009. The number of defensive asylum cases that EOIR judges have approved has risen by 99% from FY1996 through FY2009. The PRC led in the number of asylum cases approved by USCIS and EOIR over the decade of FY2000-FY2009. \nDespite national data trends that appeared to be consistent, approval rates for asylum seekers differ strikingly across regions and jurisdictions. For example, a study of 290 asylum officers who decided at least 100 cases from the PRC from FY1999 through FY2005 found that the approval rate of PRC claimants spanned from zero to over 90% during this period. In a separate study, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyzed asylum decisions from 19 immigration courts that handled almost 90% of the cases from October 1994 through April 2007 and found that \u201csignificant variation existed.\u201d\nAt the crux of the issue is the extent to which an asylum policy forged during the Cold War is adapting to the competing priorities and turbulence of the 21st century. Some assert that asylum has become an alternative pathway for immigration rather than humanitarian protection. Others argue that\u2014given the religious, ethnic, and political violence in various countries around the world\u2014it has become more difficult to differentiate the persecuted from the persecutors. Some express concern that U.S. sympathies for the asylum seekers caught up in the democratic political uprisings in the Middle East, northern Africa, and south Asia could inadvertently facilitate the entry of terrorists. Others maintain that current law does not offer adequate protections for people fleeing human rights violations or gender-based abuses that occur around the world. Some cite the disparities in asylum approvals rates and urge broad-based administrative reforms. The Refugee Protection Act of 2011 (S. 1202/H.R. 2185) would make significant revisions to asylum policy.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41753", "sha1": "fba792229121b9e5a0aab0b7a6199ad3b5a44b9e", "filename": "files/20110629_R41753_fba792229121b9e5a0aab0b7a6199ad3b5a44b9e.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41753", "sha1": "6764e73add03339feb7800d2ab90502514a32687", "filename": "files/20110629_R41753_6764e73add03339feb7800d2ab90502514a32687.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc99056/", "id": "R41753_2011Apr06", "date": "2011-04-06", "retrieved": "2012-08-31T21:48:36", "title": "Asylum and \u201cCredible Fear\u201d Issues in U.S. Immigration Policy", "summary": "This report defines asylum seekers and looks at the background of asylum seekers in the U.S. since the 1980s. It discusses current issues, including inconsistent approval rates for asylum seekers across different regions and jurisdictions. It ends with a discussion of whether or not the policy (created during the Cold War) has adapted to the 21st century, and ways in directions that current law/new legislation could move to mitigate this issue.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20110406_R41753_3d5d32afa2d4e1ef4b9ab0949a369f59a2b289ff.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20110406_R41753_3d5d32afa2d4e1ef4b9ab0949a369f59a2b289ff.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Right of asylum", "name": "Right of asylum" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Immigration", "name": "Immigration" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Refugee policy", "name": "Refugee policy" } ] } ], "topics": [ "African Affairs", "Immigration Policy", "Intelligence and National Security" ] }