Religious conversion, along with changed country conditions, supports motion to reopen

In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced that motions to reopen an immigration petition can be granted when there is both a change in the applicant's personal circumstances and a change in the country conditions.

Mr. Cipto Chandra initially applied for asylum because he feared persecution on account of his Chinese ancestry if he had to return to his home country of Indonesia. That petition was denied, and Mr. Chandra was ordered to leave the United States. Mr. Chandra did not leave, but instead remained in the U.S. and converted to Christianity. Four years later, he filed a motion to reopen his asylum claim. He provided evidence that conditions for Christians had worsened in Indonesia. Because Mr. Chandra had become a Christian, he would be subjected to the increased persecution if he returned to Indonesia.

I believe... I can stay.
Photo credit Kristina D.C. Hoeppner on Flickr.
Used under Creative Commons license.

Motions to reopen are generally very difficult to obtain, especially if the petitioner misses the deadline of 90 days after the decision. A petitioner must show that there are changed material circumstances in his or her home country, and that evidence of the circumstances was not available during the previous hearings. Arguing only that a petitioner's personal circumstances have changed is not sufficient.

In the Chandra decision, the Ninth Circuit joined other courts (the 6th, 7th, and 11th circuits) in saying that a change in personal circumstances, when combined with changed country conditions, can support a motion to reopen. The First Circuit has suggested this, but has never actually decided it.

Religious belief is only one type of personal circumstance that can lend support to a motion to reopen. In a case called Jiang v. U.S. Att'y Gen., the petitioner showed that she had a second child while living in the U.S., and that harsh enforcement of China's one-child policy was on the rise in her home province and home town. Because Ms. Jiang was able to show both changed personal circumstances (the second child) and changed country conditions (increased mistreatment of people who had more than one child), she was able to succeed on her motion to reopen. Other types of personal circumstances might also qualify.

The court dismissed the idea that Mr. Chandra's conversion could be self-serving. It cited religious freedom as "one of our oldest and most foundational policy interests... The timing of one's religious choice is not determinative of one's rights."

To read the full decision in Mr. Chandra's case, click here.

FDA considers regulations on pet food

Inspector, my hot dog has legs!
Photo credit @Mosman Council on flickr; used under CC license

When you give your pet a treat, how do you know it's safe?

A 2010 food safety bill gives the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to begin regulating pet food more stringently. After dogs across the country became sick from eating tainted jerky treats from China in 2007, the FDA began a deeper investigation. It already has the authority to make rules about what ingredients pet food may contain, but it does not inspect the products. Now, it wants to promulgate regulations that would allow it to do more to catch tainted animal food before it gets to consumers. 

The proposed rules would cover contamination by chemicals, pathogens, and other contaminants, in an attempt to reduce food-borne illnesses. The regulations would also cover feed for farm animals, but would not affect antibiotic use on industrial farms.

To learn more about what the FDA currently does to ensure pet food safety, and to give comments on proposed regulations, please visit its website.

Edward Snowden’s Case for Political Asylum

Edward Snowden has probably learned a lot about asylum law in the past few days.  His recent revelation that he was behind last week’s stories in The Guardian and the Washington Post providing details about  top-secret NSA programs have made him somewhat of an international sensation.  The U.S. is expected to indict Snowden for leaking national security secrets.  Russia and Iceland have indicated they might consider offering Snowden asylum.  But would he even qualify for asylum as defined by international law?

In order to qualify for asylum under the 1951 Refugee Convention, you must show that you are unable to unwilling to return to your home country because you have suffered past persecution or you have a well-founded fear of future persecution based upon one of five protected grounds: your race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or your political opinions.

Snowden’s case illustrates the complex relationship between refugee law and global politics.  In order to be granted asylum, he would have to argue that he is being prosecuted for leaking top-secret government information primarily for political reasons. Thus, a crucial question in Snowden’s case is when does prosecution by a state cross the line from legitimate investigation into persecution, thus rendering the accused eligible for asylum? 

In some cases, the prosecuting state's motives are obviously illegitimate, seeking to punish dissidents for engaging in activities protected by international law.  For example, Aung San Suu Kyi, a long-time political opponent of the Burmese government, was held under house arrest in Burma for almost 15 of the past 21 years merely for engaging in politics. This example illustrates one end of the prosecution/ persecution spectrum, with obviously politically motivated charges in countries that lack any pretense of the rule of law, and makes for relatively straightforward refugee claims.

Snowden’s case is not so clear cut.  It basically boils down to this question: Is the U.S. government indicting Snowden because he broke the law or because of his political opinion (that he believes what the NSA did was wrong)?  If an asylum court abroad determines that U.S. efforts to arrest and prosecute Snowden amount to “prosecution” for the commission of a crime and NOT persecution on account of political opinion, Snowden may be out of luck. 

However, Snowden may be able to show he has a legitimate fear of future prosecution by arguing that the U.S. government will mistreat him (that is, persecute him) if/when he is brought into custody.  A review of Bradley Manning, another famous national security leaker, and his treatment while in custody is enough to make anyone shudder (8 months of solitary confinement, locked in his cell for 23 hours a day, stripped of his clothes, humiliated, etc.).  It is possible that an asylum judge would find this persuasive.

It’s really up to Snowden.  Hong Kong and the U.S. maintain a bilateral extradition treaty, which would be hard to fight.  Iceland has offered asylum to at least one big name in the past (Bobby Fischer) and its minority leader for the Pirate party seems keen to help out.  Snowden would still have to find his way to Iceland without being intercepted, and the government may not be willing to sacrifice good trade relations with the U.S. in order to protect Snowden.  Other options include Russia, China, Ecuador, Guatemala, or Cuba.  It’s anyone’s guess which of these countries might be willing to accept the political fallout that would result from granting Snowden asylum.