TAKE ACTION TO DEFEND ASYLUM

Asylum is a fundamental right to which children are entitled. read more

Asylum offers children a path to protection and a future free from violence. It is enshrined in our laws and our values. It created a path to safety for people who endure persecution simply because of who they are, such as on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or gender identity, race, religion, nationality, or political opinion. Children who face any kind of persecution deserve a chance to seek protection.

We must act in the best interests of the child, which includes the right to safety. read more

The United States is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that a child’s best interests must be considered in every decision affecting that child. This includes a child’s health and safety. Resettlement of a child through asylum prevents serious risks to a child’s safety.

Each child’s story is unique and must be heard. read more

In order to understand what would be in the best interests of a child, an asylum officer or judge must have an opportunity to meet with the child and learn the child’s story. However, the proposed rule places limits on individualized consideration of children’s cases and allows immigration judges to reject claims based on written applications, never having seen or spoken with the child.

Children are not responsible for the government's failure to protect them. read more

The proposed rule changes longstanding precedent around what qualifies as persecution. For instance, it makes it almost impossible for children to win protection based on “private criminal acts of which the governmental authorities were unaware or uninvolved.” It is nearly impossible for children to access state protection systems, and often when they do, police ignore or dismiss their complaints. It is unfair to assume children can force the state to protect them. This change also puts LGBTQ children at risk because they often face violence and abuse from family and community members.

In many countries, a child’s gender or gender identity places them in harm's way. read more

The proposed rule would explicitly exclude from asylum eligibility children who suffer persecution on account of “gender” such as female genital mutilation/cutting, forced marriage, rape, domestic violence, femicide, and human trafficking. The proposed rule further states that asylum claims will not be successful where the persecution is based on “interpersonal animus or retribution,” making it nearly impossible for children who face domestic or intimate partner violence or violence on account of gender identity to be granted asylum.

Children deserve protection as soon as the threat is known. read more

The proposed rule states that “repeated threats with no actions taken to carry out the threats,” does nor rise to the level of persecution. This absurdly implies that children seeking protection would have to wait for a persecutor to follow through on their threat before being eligible for asylum. In addition, international and U.S. law acknowledges that children perceive and experience harm differently than adults. A child’s age, maturity, vulnerability, and stage of development all impact how a child experiences and fears harm. The proposed rules’ explicit exclusion of certain acts as persecution does not allow adjudicators to take these particularities of children’s cases into account.

Children are not responsible for the failure of the government to control gangs and terrorist groups. read more

The proposed rule would redefine “political opinion” and would deny asylum eligibility for those facing persecution at the hands of a non-state actor in most cases. However, this restriction utterly fails to recognize that many children flee their countries precisely because the government is unable or unwilling to control non-state actors like terrorist or gang organizations.

Persecution of a child’s parent or family member places the child in grave danger. read more

Historically, many children are granted asylum based on imputed political opinion, either because of the opinions held by their family or some other group with which they are affiliated. Under the new definition of persecution, many children who face serious harm based imputed political opinion would be denied asylum and returned to persecution.

The rule violations U.S. obligations and endangers children. read more

The rule violates U.S. obligations under domestic and international law, upends decades of legal precedent, rewrites laws passed by Congress, and violates U.S. treaty obligations. If enacted, children with well-founded fears of persecution will be returned to countries where they face grave harm and even death.