Asylum Cooperation Agreement Honduras

„This government`s agreement to send refugees to one of the most dangerous countries in the world has always been a terrible idea and its implementation would be unacceptable at this stage,” said Eleanor Acer of Human Rights First. „Honduras has failed miserably to protect the lives and human rights of its own citizens. There is simply no credible reason to believe that Honduras will effectively protect refugees who seek asylum from foreigners, whether they come from Guatemala, El Salvador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba or elsewhere. The Trump administration`s assertion that Honduras is a safe country for asylum seekers is absurd and will put lives at risk. Not only does this agreement violate U.S. and international refugee law, but the fact that the Trump administration would send vulnerable people to an uncertain place in the midst of a global pandemic is barbaric. Section 208 (a) (A) itself does not impose a specific procedure to determine whether the section`s requirements are being met – and therefore whether a foreigner is excluded from the asylum application. The great regulatory flexibility offered to departments by Section 208 (a) (2) (A) was used in the rules for implementing the U.S.-Canada agreement. 8. The United States is a party to the 1967 Protocol, but not to the 1951 convention. Stevic, 467 U.S. to 416-n.9. The protocol is not autonomous in the United States.

See Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir 2009). But the United States implemented Article 34 of the 1951 Convention – which provides that states „facilitate as much as possible the assimilation and naturalization of refugees” – through the INA asylum rule, Section 208. See Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. to 441 (in-between internal quotes omitted). As recognized by the Supreme Court, section 34 is „pre-historical” and „does not require an implementing authority to grant asylum to all persons designated as refugees.” Id. Thus, The decision of Congress to ense certain classes of foreigners to the asylum application is not contrary to Article 34. See Garcia v. Sessions, 856 F.3d 27, 42 (1st Cir. 2017) (Article 34 does not exclude a contracting state to limit a foreigner`s right to seek asylum”); see also the R-S-C-C sessions,869 F.3d 1176, 1188 (10th cir. 2017) (similar); Cazun v. U.S.

Att`y Gen., 856 F.3d 249, 257 – n.16 (3d Cir. 2017) (similar). Refugees International and Human Rights Watch would like to thank the asylum seekers and migrants who have generously shared their experiences with us. Refugees International and Human Rights Watch would also like to thank Leonel Dubon, director of the Nize Refugio. Father Mauro Verzeletti, director of Casa del Migrante; and Gabriela Mundo, Director of International Relations in the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman.

Comments are closed