Legislative Advocacy: CGRS Fights for the Rights of Refugees

CGRS continues to be closely engaged in policy advocacy at the national level. When the Senate took up the issue of immigration reform this spring, CGRS's focus was not on the question of legalization -- which occupied almost all the media attention -- but instead on the wide ranging proposals that would negatively impact refugees. CGRS is concerned about the devastating effect that these proposals are likely to have on vulnerable groups of people, including asylum seekers, children, trafficking victims, and others seeking protection in the United States.

CGRS's analysis of the impact of a number of Senate bill S.2611's provisions on women refugees, which was shared with every Senate office, was endorsed by the National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women, the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, Human Rights Watch, and Human Rights First. CGRS's concerns about the proposed legislation include:

Expedited Removal: This already controversial process, which allows deportation without judicial review, would be greatly expanded to apply to all people (except those from Mexico, Canada, or Cuba) who are found within 14 days of arrival and within 100 miles of a land border.

While the expedited removal process adversely impacts all asylum seekers, it has a disproportionately negative impact on women, many of whom face significant cultural and psychological barriers to articulating the reasons for their fears within moments of arriving in a strange new country. Expedited removal is not implemented or reviewed by judges, and well-documented evidence points to the failure of low-level border enforcement officials to apply required protections for asylum seekers in this process.

Detention: The bill would greatly expand the number of immigrants who could be detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS's policy of releasing immigrants (including asylum seekers) to

await a subsequent hearing after they are apprehended by immigration authorities is frequently derided as one of "catch and release." However, the reality is that many asylum seekers are not quickly released, and may languish for months or even years in harsh conditions of detention that often re-traumatize refugees fleeing persecution.

This policy has a particularly devastating impact on women with children because they generally remain separated while in detention. CGRS is aware of numerous tragic cases of women who fled violent abuse in their home countries, only to abandon their asylum claims because they found the conditions of detention unbearable. An amendment which sought to ensure that asylum seekers would be treated more humanely -- by improving conditions in detention centers, promoting alternatives to detention, monitoring expedited removal interviews, and ensuring hearings on detention within 72 hours -- did not even come to a vote after the Bush Administration made clear its opposition to this proposal.

Any legislation that lacks safeguards and fails to ensure due process for vulnerable groups seeking protection in the U.S. is not just bad policy; it is an unacceptable departure from our tradition as a safe haven for those fleeing tyranny and oppression in their home countries.

Notwithstanding CGRS's criticisms of S.2611, it bears mention that the immigration bill passed by the House of Representatives (known as the "Sensenbrenner bill") is far more restrictive than the Senate version. It is unclear if Congress will succeed in enacting any legislation this year because members of the House appear unwilling to compromise on key aspects of the Sensenbrenner bill.

ACT NOW!
Please call your representatives in Congress and urge them to support immigration reform without trampling on the rights of refugees. To read CGRS's position paper on this issue, click here.

Pro Bono Spotlight on O'Melveny & Myers, LLP

Team Wins Asylum for Transgender/
Gay Couple from Guatemala

"Marta" and "Pedro" (not their real names) are a young Guatemalan couple who were driven out of their country by an unrelenting wave of anti-gay and transgender violence at the hands of police, gang members, and ordinary citizens. They sought protection in the U.S., where they had the good fortune of securing pro bono representation from attorneys David Booher, Tim Martin, and Mark Scarsi with O'Melveny & Myers LLP in Los Angeles.

Marta, now 30 years old, has known since a young age that she was "different from other boys." At age 16, she began to dress in women's clothing and "Marta was born." However, for her entire life she has been treated with scorn, abuse, and violence. Marta at first became a recluse, but she wasn't safe at home either, where she was tormented by relatives who subjected her to years of sexual assault and rape; ultimately, her father threw her out of the house.

Marta's mother gave her a job in her beauty salon, but she was unsafe there also; in 1998, Marta was beaten, stabbed, and shot in the leg by men yelling derogatory epithets. She was refused treatment at a hospital and the police would not get involved. Later that year, Marta was arrested at a nightclub; the police sexually assaulted her, and she only escaped being raped by paying a bribe. Marta's father eventually let her move back home, and she continued to work at the salon because no one else would hire her.

Pedro realized he was gay around age eleven. He was abused by classmates and teachers, his family disowned him, and he was fired from his job because of his sexual orientation. On one occasion, he was robbed and beaten on the street by police officers who called him a "fag."

Eventually, the two met and fell in love. They lived together as an openly transgender/gay couple, for which they faced unrelenting abuse and violence. In 2004, Pedro was abducted by men who beat him and slashed his throat and stomach before throwing him out of a moving vehicle. Throughout the attack, the men hurled insults at Pedro and mocked his relationship with Marta. Pedro had the courage to report the incident, but the police refused to pursue his attackers.

The couple realized that their lives would remain in danger if they stayed in Guatemala, so they fled to Mexico in early 2005 and crossed the border into the U.S. "There is no way we can return to Guatemala," says Pedro. "If I had to go, I would feel like I was [being] taken to my death."

Facing deportation in immigration court, Marta and Pedro were referred to the O'Melveny team by the Los Angeles non-profit organization, Public Counsel. In an important and unusual step, their lawyers were able to maneuver their case out of court and into the jurisdiction of the Asylum Office.

With the help of a detailed CGRS memo on relevant country conditions, the O'Melveny team prepared extensive materials in support of their asylum applications, including: a brief, and declarations from Marta, Pedro, and numerous members of Marta's family. They also submitted dozens of reports and articles describing the persecution of transgender people and gay men in Guatemala.

Each year CGRS provides technical assistance to thousands of pro bono attorneys across the country -- like those on the O'Melveny team -- that includes legal advice, country conditions research, and sample briefs. CGRS also connects attorneys with similar cases across the country and around the globe.

The O'Melveny team retained an expert renowned for his work on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues in Latin America. Dr. Tom Davies, well-known for his testimony in the groundbreaking LGBT case Hernández-Montiel, prepared an exhaustive affidavit on the persecution of transgender people and gay men in Guatemala. Working with the Program for Torture Victims in Los Angeles, the team also obtained supportive psychological and medical experts for Marta and Pedro.

Marta and Pedro's attorneys then took the somewhat unusual step of requesting that they be interviewed together. Although such requests are rarely granted, the Asylum Office agreed. This enabled Marta and Pedro to testify on their own behalf and on behalf of each another.

During their interview, the couple was questioned for over six hours on minute factual details about their lives and the harm they faced in Guatemala. After an agonizing wait, they learned in February 2006 that they had been granted asylum. Now enjoying their new lives in the U.S., Marta and Pedro are finally safe from the life-threatening persecution they faced in Guatemala.

Infamous Immigration Judge Removed from Bench, Attorney General Orders Broader Investigation into Complaints Across the Country

Donald V. Ferlise, the Philadelphia immigration judge (IJ) well known for his abusive behavior toward asylum seekers who appear before him, was removed from the court calendar in May. Ferlise was the judge who in 1996 denied asylum to Fauziya Kassindja, a young woman from Togo fleeing female genital cutting. His decision was subsequently reversed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, resulting in the landmark legal ruling which established that women who suffer serious violations of their fundamental human rights are entitled to refugee status in the U.S. CGRS Director Karen Musalo served as lead attorney to Fauziya.

Ferlise's removal -- and it is unclear if or when he will be returned -- comes upon the heels of what one reporter called a "sharply worded" communication from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to immigration judges regarding their performance. The Attorney General's January 2006 memorandum expressed concern about the failure of some judges to treat individuals appearing before them with "appropriate respect and consideration," and referred to conduct on their part which was "intemperate or even abusive."

Although the Attorney General's letter was welcomed by many, it comes quite late; lawyers and asylum advocates have been sounding the alarm bell about misconduct among some of the nation's IJs for years. The problem became more visible as the result of a 2002 restructuring of the Board of Immigration Appeals by then-Attorney General Ashcroft, which resulted in federal appeals courts directly reviewing a much higher volume of immigration court decisions. The federal judges were frequently shocked by the lack of professionalism displayed by the IJ's, and issued a number of opinions that not only reversed the IJ's legal findings, but criticized the IJs for their bias, lack of professionalism, unethical conduct, and disrespectful and insensitive treatment of asylum applicants.

A 2000 study released by the San Jose Mercury News ranked Ferlise as one of country's ten asylum judges who granted the fewest number of cases, and attorneys often reported that his behavior displayed extreme disregard for the asylum seekers who appeared in his court room. Ferlise's most

recent rebuke by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is the fifth time that published opinions have cited his "crude and cruel conduct" or "bias laden" remarks. The Philadelphia City Council even took the unprecedented step of passing a resolution that called for Ferlise's removal from the bench.

As Attorney General Gonzales noted in his memo, for an asylum seeker, IJs are the "face of American justice." It is unfortunate that it took ten years since his denial of protection to Fauziya Kassindja for the Department of Justice to take steps to curb Judge Ferlise's particularly callous brand of American justice.

"Ferlise's most recent rebuke by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is the fifth time that published opinions have cited his 'crude and cruel conduct' or 'bias-laden' remarks."

Coming soon...
In 1994 a 17-year-old girl from Togo arrived in the United States seeking political asylum. The girl, Fauziya Kassindja (also known as Kasinga), had literally fled with little more than the clothes on her back in order to escape female genital cutting. In 1996, a long year and a half after her arrival in the U.S. -- most of it spent in horrible conditions of detention -- Fauziya Kassindja was granted asylum. Her case established the landmark legal ruling that women who suffer serious violations of their fundamental human rights are entitled to refugee status.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Kasinga decision. In our upcoming Annual Report, CGRS will look back over the past decade and examine how this case has helped to shape the landscape for gender-based asylum claims, both in the U.S. and beyond. We look forward to sharing it with you.

"Getting Away With Murder":
CGRS Calls Attention to Guatemala's Femicides

In November 2005 CGRS released a groundbreaking report entitled "Getting Away with Murder: Guatemala's Failure to Protect Women and Rodi Alvarado's Quest for Safety." The report makes connections between the escalating abuse and murder of women in Guatemala and the need for refugee protection for women fleeing such violence. "Getting Away with Murder" uses the much-publicized case of Guatemalan asylum seeker Rodi Alvarado to illustrate how impunity for the violation of women's most fundamental human rights leaves them with few options but to flee for their lives.

With the release of its report, CGRS initiated the U.S.-Guatemala Partnership, a project to pressure both the U.S. -- as a major funder of the Guatemalan justice system -- and the Guatemalan government to take appropriate actions to end the epidemic of violence against women in that country.

Rodi Alvarado sought asylum in the United States after suffering ten years of brutal domestic battering at the hands of her husband, a former soldier in Guatemala's military. Rodi's husband viciously and frequently beat her and repeatedly boasted that he could kill her without consequence. Neither the police nor the courts in Guatemala would lift a finger to restrain him, or to protect her. Her controversial case, now pending for ten years, has yet to be decided.

The boasts that Rodi's husband made are a sad reality in Guatemala, where, as detailed in "Getting Away with Murder," more than 2,000 teenage girls and women have been killed in the last five years. These murders have been dubbed "femicides" because gender appears to be the primary or only unifying characteristic of the victims and the crimes are frequently carried out with extreme misogynistic brutality, accompanied by sexual violence and mutilation.

Investigation and prosecution of these killings have been woefully inadequate -- less than 10% of the crimes have even been investigated, and there have been no more than a dozen convictions.

The absence of a meaningful law enforcement response is seen as a factor in the escalating violence. The title of a recent BBC documentary about the femicides, Killer's Paradise, underscores the virtually total impunity that exists for these horrific murders.

In this context, CGRS -- along with human rights activists in both countries -- has decided to take action to address the brutal murders of Guatemalan women. The U.S. has a long history of influence over Guatemala, and a necessary component of CGRS's advocacy strategy is to persuade key U.S. officials to pressure the Guatemalan government to take all reasonable measures in response to the femicides.

Exertion of pressure by the U.S. government is especially appropriate in that it is a major funder of programs to strengthen democratic and legal institutions in Guatemala, providing more than $38.5 million over the years through the "Rule of Law" program administered by U.S. AID. It does not appear as if this funding has resulted in any appreciable improvement in the policing or prosecutorial functions in Guatemala; the consensus among human rights groups is that the performance of the police and prosecutor's office has been shameful. It has been documented that the police frequently fail to protect, examine, or preserve the crime scene, and that forensic evidence is tainted -- or simply lost.

"… impunity for the violation of women's
most fundamental human rights leaves them with few options but to flee for their lives."

In other cases, the police themselves have been implicated in the murders of the women. The Public Ministry, which has the role of investigating and prosecuting crimes, has failed to perform effectively. Almost half of the cases have been closed without being investigated.

In May of this year, CGRS, working closely with partner human rights groups and grassroots

activists, accomplished an important first step in the long-term strategy of bringing U.S. pressure to bear on Guatemala. CGRS helped to facilitate a sign-on letter among members of the House of Representatives to Thomas Shannon, the Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the Department of State, urging him to take action. The letter, which was sponsored by Representatives Barbara Lee, Tom Lantos, and Hilda Solis, and signed by 112 other members of Congress, called on Ambassador Shannon to take action that would "bring ... assailants to justice and combat the culture of impunity." The letter detailed concrete steps toward this end.

Although the letter was addressed to the U.S. Department of State, it reverberated far beyond U.S. borders. CGRS's Guatemalan partners reported that news articles regarding the letter appeared in the daily newspapers in the country and created quite a stir. CGRS plans to continue working toward building pressure for change in Guatemala, with the next step being a Senate letter in order to send a clear message that congressional commitment on this issue is firm.

The following section has been excerpted from CGRS's report, "Getting Away With Murder: Guatemala's Failure to Protect Women and Rodi Alvarado's Quest for Safety." To access the full text of the report, and to learn more about the femicides in Guatemala, click here.

Recommendations

The significant investment of U.S. resources is having no discernible positive impact on the Guatemalan government's response to the investigation or prosecution of the femicides. The following recommendations are intended to ensure that the U.S. government uses its considerable influence to pressure the Guatemalan government to seriously address the violation of women's rights; and that the Guatemalan government's measures to prevent femicides, to prosecute the perpetrators, and to punish those officials responsible for widespread impunity produce concrete results and lead to overall improvements in the situation of women in Guatemala.

Recommendations for U.S. policymakers:

• Sponsor and support congressional resolutions condemning the femicides in Guatemala.
• Sponsor and support a congressional delegation to Guatemala to investigate the femicides.
• Raise concerns with Guatemalan officials.
• Promote the eradication of femicide and transparency within the Guatemalan criminal justice system through on-going projects administered by USAID.
• Sponsor and support legislation that takes broad measures aimed at eradicating violations of women's human rights worldwide.

Recommendations for the Guatemalan government:

• Publicly condemn the abduction and murder of women and girls.
• Establish concrete guidelines and procedures for all steps of criminal investigation in to reports of violence against women.
• Bring legislation in line with international standards on violence against women and establish criminal penalties for domestic violence, including marital rape.
• Establish a central, unified database of missing persons.
• Establish a state forensics lab.
• Train judges and prosecutors in matters related to violence against women.
• Reform and rebuild the state to end the general climate of impunity that exists in Guatemala.
• Invite the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Killings for a joint visit to Guatemala.
• Implement all of Amnesty International's recommendations detailed in its 2005 report on the killings of women [AMR 34/017/2005; click here].

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
-- One Reader's Response on Islam and Iranian Law

Dear CGRS:

In an article detailing the asylum case of an Iranian woman in CGRS's Spring 2006 newsletter, it is stated that "Under Islamic law in Iran, a woman may become the temporary wife of a married Muslim man after a simple recital of words." While this statement is technically true in that Siqeh (temporary marriage) is interpreted as valid by a majority of jurists in Iran today, it is worth noting that the country's entire judicial and legislative structures assert their basis in Islamic law, so use of the phrase "under Islamic law" is redundant.

Islamic law constitutes the historical, sociocultural, and philosophical backdrop of jurisprudence in contemporary Iran, in a similar fashion to how many would argue Judeo-Christian civilization forms the broader context of present day law in the U.S. and Europe. Yet, when discussing controversial issues such as the death penalty, for example, few would state the matter by saying "under Judeo-Christian-influenced law in the U.S., the death penalty is often applied for such and such crime." Instead, we simply say "under U.S. federal law" or "California state law." I believe a more apt description of the Siqeh law would have begun with the phrase "Under Iranian law," and this would have delivered the point just as well.

You may be asking yourself, why is he making such an effort to point out what seems to be a subtle triviality? After all, isn't Iran's current judicial system based on Islamic law? Islamic law is the socio-religious law of 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide, while Iran is only one particular segment of that group (constituting approximately 5% of Muslims worldwide), and is in the minority of states that permit the exceedingly controversial practice of Siqeh marriage, which is even subject to debate amongst Iranian jurists themselves.

But by using such a broad statement as "Under Islamic Law in Iran," an association is made between the religion of Islam and practices that are oppressive towards Iranian women, thereby perpetuating a common stereotype that bears little empirical evidence, yet is often assumed as fact in the U.S. While the phrase may conjure up pejorative images of stern ayatollahs and draconian social policies for some, the Islamic legal tradition has produced such eminent jurists and social justice advocates as Ms. Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner and Iranian-trained lawyer,

who is perhaps the most visible of a vast spectrum of socially-conscious legal scholars in Iran today. The phrase "Under Islamic Law in Iran" also conveys an image of a static, rigid, and monolithic legal order, when in reality its practice is a constantly contested, redefined, and reinterpreted jurisprudential framework amongst Iranian jurists. Despite this lively debate, there is just one "official" interpretation adopted by the Iranian government.

Those who are genuinely concerned with improving the socioeconomic conditions of Iranians on the ground (or the people of any other society for that matter) must face a certain reality: progressive movements are more likely to succeed when defined and articulated by a language, culture, and locally-evolved approach that resonates with the hearts and minds of people in that society. This is an important reason not to perpetuate misleading images of a monolithic, inflexible "Islamic law" or, in the case of Iran, limit our descriptions to the official legal positions of the present government. In doing so, we overlook the diversity of scholars that operate within an Islamic legal framework, often challenging Iran's government and, in the process, holding it accountable for its promises to ordinary Iranians.

On the whole, the article was informative and inspirational and my comments should not detract from the noble work of the attorneys involved in Ms. S's case. However, at a time when promoting mutual understanding between our world's diverse societies and cultures is as crucial as ever, it is in a humble spirit of dialogue that I raise this issue.

Faiz Ahmed, J.D.
University of California
Hastings College of the Law

SHARE, CONTRIBUTE, RESPOND…
CGRS invites you to share your thoughts with us. If you would like to respond to anything that you have read in our newsletter or you would like to contribute original content to be considered for publication, please send your submission to bartowf@uchastings.edu. Please write "Letter to the Editor" in the subject line of your message and kindly limit all submissions to 300 words or less. CGRS reserves the right to shorten letters for space requirements and some submissions may not be selected for publication.

CGRS Staff and Student Updates

CGRS Welcomes Development/Communications Director

CGRS is pleased to welcome Felecia Bartow as its new Development/Communications Director. Felecia recently moved to the Bay Area and began working with CGRS at the end of May. Prior to joining CGRS, she worked with a range of stakeholders on issues related to refugee/immigrants' rights and human rights at organizations, including the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) in Philadelphia and

the Midwest Immigrant & Human Rights Center (MIHRC) in Chicago. Felecia brings experience in grant writing and reporting, fundraising, media relations, and policy advocacy in a number of areas that relate to CGRS and its constituents, including asylum, human trafficking, refugee protection, and domestic violence, among others. Her experiences also include international work in Honduras where she served as a consultant to COMAL, an alternative community marketing network. She is a graduate of the George Warren Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, where she received her MSW.

Felecia recently served as an Associate Producer of Rights on the Line: Vigilantes at the Border, a joint AFSC/ACLU/WITNESS video production that exposes the ugly anti-immigrant politics behind the Minuteman Project.

Contact Felecia at: 415.581.8823 (Tel) or
by email.

New Law Clerks and Student Interns join CGRS for the Summer

Please join CGRS in welcoming our five talented summer interns:

Meghann Boyle is a third-year student at University of California Hastings College of the Law and an honors graduate of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Meghann previously interned with the Feminist Majority Foundation, the Office of State Senator Robert Antonioni (D-MA), and the National Legal Sanctuary for Community Advancement, a civil rights organization focused on addressing post-9/11 discrimination against Middle Eastern and Muslim communities.

Tatiana Chaterji is a junior at Harvard College, where she is studying Government and Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality. She comes to CGRS as a Liman Undergraduate Summer Fellow.

Tatiana is involved in South Asian political activism and community theatre, working in immigrant communities through tutoring/teaching programs in Boston.

Jessica Levin is a junior at Cornell University, where she is majoring in Government and Spanish, with a minor in Latino Studies. Jessica is a member of the Cornell debate team and edits one of Cornell's student newspapers. She plans to attend law school when she graduates in 2008.

Katharine Ruhl is a third-year student at King Hall School of Law, University of California, Davis. While at King Hall, she worked with the UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic on deportation defense and asylum cases, as well as advised criminal defense attorneys on the immigration consequences of criminal convictions. She came to law school after providing services to immigrant victims of domestic violence, asylum seekers, and immigrant families at Nationalities Service Center in Philadelphia.

Shonali Shome is a third-year Public Interest Law Scholar at Georgetown University Law Center. She worked with immigrant women and female asylees during her summer internship at the Tahirih Justice Center and through Georgetown's political asylum clinic, where she successfully represented a Guinean woman in immigration court. Shonali spent a semester working on an Initiative Against Trafficking in Persons at Global Rights, and prior to starting law school she spent three years as a Development Associate at the Global Fund for Women.