Sayef Amin Southeast University LLBH Dhaka,Banani1213 +8801924122222

1. SOUTH E A S T UNIV E R S I T Y
DE P T . OF LA W & JUST I C E
Course Title: International Refugee law
Course Code: LLBH 4212
Assignment On
Refugees Protection in US &
UK

2. U.S Asylum and Refugee Policy:
The United States offers Asylum and Refugee protection based on an
inherent belief in human rights and in ending or preventing the persecution
of individuals. Asylum is a precious and important protection granted by
federal law to qualified applicants who are unable or unwilling to return to
their country of nationality because of persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution. Claims of persecution must be based on at least one of five
internationally recognized grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion. The Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 provided that some
actions taken under coercive population control programs constitute
persecution on account of political opinion. A maximum of 1,000 aliens per
fiscal year may be granted asylum or admitted as a refugee under this
provision.
In addition to asylum and refugee protection, withholding of removal is
available to refugees in the United States who can show likelihood their
lives or freedom would be threatened if they were returned to the country in
question. Withholding of removal is in some ways similar to asylum, but is
governed by a higher standard, requiring applicants to establish that it is
more likely than not that they would be persecuted. Unlike asylum, however,
once this standard is met, there is no discretion to deny withholding and the
applicant may not be returned to the country.
Asylum /Refugee Application Process
Asylum and refugee applicants are both adjudicated under the same legal
standard, but differ in terms of where they are located. The potential asylee
is in the United States or applying for admission at a port of entry, and the
potential refugee is outside the United States. Aliens in the United States or
at a port of entry can apply for asylum by filing an Application for Asylum,
Form I-589, with either the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) or
the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Department of
Justice agency that comprises the immigration courts and Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA). Applicants can obtain a Form I-589 and filing
instructions from an asylum office, an INS district office or by calling the
INS toll-free request line at 1-800-870-3676. A Form I-589 must be filed

3. within one year after the alien's arrival in the United States, unless
there exist changed circumstances affecting the applicant's eligibility for
asylum, or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing.
People overseas who are eligible for consideration by the U.S. refugee
program apply by filing a Registration for Classification as a Refugee, Form
I-590.
"Affirmative" Asylum Applications with INS:
An alien who is in the United States and who is not in immigration
proceedings may apply for asylum by filing a Form I-589 with the
appropriate INS regional Service
Center by mail. The Service Center sends the applicant a receipt notice and
refers the applicant to one of eight asylum offices around the country. The
offices are staffed by approximately 300 specially trained members of the
Asylum Officer Corps (AOC), which has been adjudicating asylum
applications filed with INS since 1991. Asylum claims brought before the
AOC are "affirmative" applications filed voluntarily by the alien. If an
asylum officer denies the asylum application of an alien in lawful status, the
applicant can reapply for asylum if he/she is later placed in removal
proceedings before an immigration judge. Aliens who are in unlawful status
and cannot be granted asylum by the AOC are referred to an immigration
judge, before whom they can again raise their asylum claim. Affirmative
asylum applicants are not placed in detention while their application is
considered.
Although the Form I-589 is an application for both asylum and withholding
of removal, generally it is immigration judges, and not asylum officers, who
adjudicate applications for withholding of removal during removal
proceedings in which it has been determined that an alien is removable.
"Defensive" Asylum Applications with EOIR:
The Executive Office for Immigration Review has exclusive jurisdiction
over the cases of aliens who are placed in removal proceedings and then
seek asylum. Asylum claims filed before EOIR are "defensive" applications
raised in removal proceedings before immigration judges as a defense
against removal. Aliens who seek asylum as a defense against removal
may be detained for being in the United States illegally until an

4. immigration judge rules on their asylum claim. Their detention,
however, is not due to their asylum claim.
Asylum Process for Certain Arriving Aliens:
The 1996 law mandates that aliens who arrive at a U.S. port of entry without
travel documents or who engage in fraud or material misrepresentation be
detained and placed in expedited removal. Aliens who express or indicate a
fear of persecution during the expedited removal process receive a "credible
fear" interview with an INS asylum officer. Aliens found to have a credible
fear are referred for ordinary removal proceedings in which they may apply
for asylum before an immigration judge. Aliens determined to have a
credible fear are detained because they remain in removal proceedings
until an immigration judge rules on their asylum claim. Their detention
also is not due to their asylum claim.
Parole:
INS district directors have discretionary authority to parole, or release, an
alien in proceedings from detention. In determining whether release is
appropriate on a case-by-case basis, district directors must decide whether
the alien’s release would serve an urgent humanitarian need or significant
public benefit and whether the alien has established his/her identity, poses a
threat to the community, demonstrates family ties in the community,
presents evidence of a credible asylum claim, or poses a risk of flight.
Different, more restrictive criteria govern the custody of certain criminal
aliens.
Overseas Refugee Processing:
Each year the President, in consultation with Congress, determines the
number of refugees who may be admitted to the United States during the
coming fiscal year. This annual ceiling is divided among five regional sub-
ceilings -- Africa, East Asia, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean and the Near
East/South Asia. For fiscal 1999, the President and Congress have
determined that up to 78,000 refugees may be admitted to the United States,
with those admissions allocated among the five regions as follows:
• Africa – 12,000

5. • East Asia – 9,000
• Europe (includes 3,000 unfunded) – 48,000
• Latin America/Caribbean – 3,000
• Near East/South Asia – 4,000
• Unallocated – 2,000
The Europe, Bosnia and former Soviet Union ceiling includes 3,000
unfunded numbers allocated to the former Soviet Union for use as needed,
provided that resources within existing appropriations are available to fund
the cost of their admission. The 2,000 unallocated numbers will be allocated
as needed to meet regional shortfalls. Unused admissions numbers from one
region may be transferred to another region where the need for admissions
numbers exceeds the sub-ceiling.
Access to the U.S. refugee program is not open-ended. To file a Form I-590,
a refugee applicant must first be found to be eligible for a refugee interview.
The question of whether applicants are eligible for a refugee interview is
governed by their nationality and whether they come under one of the
processing priorities used to manage the U.S. refugee program. Like the
setting of the admissions’ ceiling, the designation of eligible nationalities
and processing priorities is decided annually as part of the consultations
process.
Traditionally, refugee applicants are interviewed in third countries after
having fled their country of persecution. Individuals who have fled their
country and believe themselves to be at risk if returned should contact the
nearest office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR). That office will make a decision as to whether the individuals
require protection and where that protection may be provided. The U.S. legal
definition of refugee also allows for in-country refugee processing in
countries so designated by the President. For fiscal 1999, the U.S. refugee
program will operate in-country programs in Havana, Ho Chi Minh City and
Moscow. Those eligible for Moscow processing are nationals or habitual
residents of the former Soviet Union as it existed on September 2, 1991.
The United Kingdom’s Asylum System:
The United Kingdom (UK) asylum system is notorious for its complexity.
Asylum seekers must navigate a refugee system with three different types of
protection, each with a different set of criteria and rights and obligations.

6. They are also subject to a multi-step, lengthy application procedure,
beginning with eligibility screening, followed by an interview, and
potentially followed further by up to six levels of appeal and judicial review.
Throughout this process, most asylum seekers are entitled to limited
financial support. However, some categories of asylum seekers are left
destitute. Successful asylum seekers are only entitled to temporary
protection for a period of five year terms. After the five years elapses, they
may then apply for permanent protection.
In addition to its complexity, the UK asylum system has been criticized for
its poor initial decisions. The asylum system is managed by the UK Border
Agency (UKBA). Each case is assigned to a UKBA official (Case Owner)
who oversees the case from the initial interview and decision. Critics allege
that these Case Owners are poorly trained and are influenced by institutional
biases. A high number of initial decisions rendered by the Case Owners are
overturned and returned for rehearing.
Although the UKBA has stated that its objective is to provide a system that
is “fast, fair and firm”,1 it has been moving towards a system that effectively
expedites, limits or discourages asylum claims. For example, it has recently
created a fast track procedure for asylum seekers that are deemed to be a
flight-risk or that have “straightforward claims.” These asylum seekers are
detained and their claims are decided very quickly.
Critics allege that these fast track procedures result in a significant number
of errors. Moreover, like other European countries, the UK has restricted
effective access to its asylum system through measures such as overseas
interdiction, carrier sanctions, the European Schengen Agreement,
imprisonment for the use of false documents and aggressive detention
policies for some asylum categories. Still, on average, the UK receives more
than three times as many asylum seekers as Canada. Critics of Canada’s
refugee system point to the UK’s lower acceptance rates as evidence of
Canada’s excessive generosity. However, the UK system is, as discussed
above, complex, lengthy, and at times, unfair, and as result, often excludes
legitimate refugees. Furthermore, UK has been less successful than Canada
at removing failed asylum seekers.

7. Types of Protection:
The United Kingdom offers 3 different types of refugee protection:
1. Asylum under the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention:
Asylum is principally granted under the 1951 U.N. Convention. To merit
protection under the Convention, claimants must meet the criteria set out in
the Convention definition of a refugee: they must (1) be outside their
country of origin (2) have a well-founded fear of persecution (3) due to
reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a
particular social group and (4) are unable or unwilling, by reason of their
fear, to secure protection from their country of origin.
Convention Refugees (CRs) are at first granted temporary protection for a
period of five years. They can also apply to have their spouse and children
under the age of 18 join them in the UK During this five year period, the
UKBA may review a CR’s case if the CR has acted in a way that violates the
Convention or if the conditions in the CR’s home country have changed. In
some instances, the CR’s status may be revoked and the CR may be issued a
deportation order.
When the five year period of temporary protection elapses, CRs may apply
to renew their temporary residence permit or may apply for permanent
residence (Indefinite Leave to Remain). The UKBA will then decide to grant
them permanent status, extend their temporary status, or revoke their
temporary status depending on the current conditions in their countries of
origin. prior to 2005; the process of securing permanent protection was
simpler. Claimants who were recognized as CRs were automatically granted
permanent residence (Indefinite Leave to Remain). Under this former
regime, the status of CR was more secure, rendering integration somewhat
easier.
2) Humanitarian Protection:
Asylum seekers who do not meet the criteria under the 1951 U.N. Refugee
Convention may qualify for Humanitarian Protection (“HP”). Under the
Immigration Act, HP may be granted to asylum-seekers who face a serious

8. risk to their life or person in their home countries. Like Convention
Refugees, those who are granted HP status have the right to remain in the
UK for five years and to apply for their spouse and children under the age of
18 to join them. During this five year period, the UKBA may review an
individual’s HP status if the individual has acted in a way that violates the
Convention or if the conditions in the individual’s home country have
changed. The UKBA may then decide to leave the HP status in place,
change the HP status to Discretionary Leave to Remain (“DLR”), or revoke
the HP status and require the individual to leave the country. After the five
years have elapsed, individuals with HP status may apply to remain
indefinitely in the UK and will be allowed to do so if they are still in need of
protection.
3) Discretionary Leave to Remain:
If asylum-seekers do not qualify for Convention Refugee (CR) or
Humanitarian
Protection (“HP”) status, the UKBA may grant them Discretionary Leave to
Remain
(“DLR”) under the Immigration Act. DLR is granted for a period of three
years or less to an asylum-seeker who:
 makes a claim under article 3 or article 8 of the European Convention
of Human Rights;
 is an unaccompanied child;
 is excluded from refugee status or HP because of criminality or
security reasons;
 demonstrates particularly compelling reasons why they should not be
 Deported.
At the end of three years, the UKBA will review the case and, in some
circumstances, may extend DLR for a further three years. After an individual
has had DLR status for six years, the UKBA may then either grant them
permanent residence or deport them. Once again, the UKBA will base their
decision on the current conditions in the individual’s home country.
The UKBA will not grant permanent residence if the individual was
ineligible for refugee status for reasons of criminality or national security. In
this case, the individual must leave the UK. Both HP and DLR were
introduced on April 1, 2003. These categories were intended to replace the
former category of Exceptional Leave to Remain (“ELR”), which was
perceived as overly generous. The UK government has explicitly promoted

9. the regime under HP and DLR as more restrictive. Like HP and DLR, ELR
was granted to those who did not qualify for refugee status but could not be
returned to their home countries. Reasons barring removal included
compelling compassionate or humanitarian grounds, the United Kingdom’s
obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, the inability
of a country to give proper reception to unaccompanied children, and delays
of seven years or more in decision-making that were not the asylum seekers
fault. ELR could be granted for up to a four year period at a home officer’s
discretion. At the end of this four year period, an individual could apply for
permanent residence (Indefinite Leave to Remain).
The UK’s role in the international refugee protection system:
In recent years, global refugee numbers have been increasing, from 8.7
million in 2005, 9.9 million in 2006 to 11.4 million by the end of 2007.
Most refugees flee to neighboring countries and remain in their region of
origin. At the end of 2007, the Middle East and North Africa region hosted a
quarter of all refugees (approx. 2,700,000 refugees), primarily from Iraq,
while Europe hosted 14% (approx. 1,580,000 refugees). Pakistan is the
country with the single largest number of refugees (2 million).
Between them, Syria and Jordan host over 2 million Iraqi refugees. In
comparison, the UK hosts less than 300,000 representing 2.6% of the
world’s refugees. Global asylum numbers are also increasing.
Approximately 647,000 asylum applications were made around the world in
2007 – an increase of 5% from 2006 and the first rise in 4 years. EU
countries received 222,900 new applications in 2007 – an 11% increase on
2006. The UK received 27,900 asylum claims in 2007, just over 8% of the
total received in industrialized countries and the lowest level recorded since
1989. By contrast, in 2003, the UK received 60,050 applications.
Some Western European countries such as Austria, Germany and France
have seen a steady decrease in asylum numbers. Figures in Germany reached
a 30-year low in 2007 with 19,200 individuals applying for asylum. In
Sweden, however, the 2007 level is the third highest ever witnessed in the
country after 1992 (84,000 claims) and 1993 (37,600 claims). This increase
has been caused primarily by the continuous arrival of large numbers of
Iraqi asylum-seekers. Major increases have been witnessed at the external
borders of the EU, in Greece, Italy, Spain and Turkey.

10. Greece has emerged as a major new recipient of asylum-seekers in the
industrialized world. In the course of 2007, 25,100 asylum applications were
lodged in the country, almost 13,000 more than in 2006, constituting five
times more applications than in 2004 (4,500 asylum claims). Airline Liaison
Officers (ALOs) and juxtaposed controls – UK immigration officers posted
at train and ferry ports in France and Belgium - are just two of the measures
used to control irregular migration overseas.
The UK has approximately 40 ALOs posted in over 30 locations around the
world. In the last 5 years, UK ALOs have prevented more than 150,000
inadequately documented migrants from reaching the UK. Juxtaposed
controls stopped 16,898 people crossing the channel irregularly in 2006. It is
not know how many of those stopped were fleeing persecution. In Kent the
number of irregular immigrants arriving since 2002 has reduced by 88%.
Since FRONTEX became fully operational in 2006, it has intercepted over
50,000 irregular migrants in 33 different operations, and the UK was
involved in approximately half of these operations. FRONTEX does not
provide any breakdown of whether those intercepted wished to/did seek
protection
How unequal is the current distribution of Refugee Burdens?
When comparing their relative contributions to refugee protection, stat are
likely to disagree about how such contributions should be assessed. By
looking at some of the most directly linked burdens/responsibilities that
countries are faced with as a result of international refugee flows, it is
possible to arrive at some approximations of relative responsibilities that
countries are faced with or prepared to accept. Table 1 below tries to do just
that.
It presents UNHCR data on asylum and resettlement on 15 OECD countries
(columns 1&2) for the period 1994-2002. Column 3 lists countries’ relative
burdens on the basis of asylum applications received and resettlement cases
accepted (controlling for different population size of host countries).
Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgium have had the largest relative
numbers of asylum applications over that period, while Japan, Spain and
Italy had the lowest.

11. States have a substantial degree of discretion in how they deal with asylum
seekers on their territory. When dealing with asylum seekers, countries have
generally three options. (1) Recognizing their asylum claims, i.e. granting
them refugee status under the Geneva Convention; (2) giving them some
other protection status (such as ‘exceptional leave to remain’) that allows
them to legally live and (usually) work in the country, and (3) to reject an
asylum claim and send the applicant back to their home country. Column 6
in the table shows a substantial degree of variation in states’ willingness to
award asylum-seekers in their territory some form of temporary or
permanent status (Convention or subsidiary protection status). On average,
the Netherlands, Denmark and Canada were the most generous host
countries, while Japan, Germany and Australia were the toughest countries
when handling requests for protection.
Why Refugee Burdens are unequally distributed?
When trying to account for the current distribution of refugee burdens
among countries, three principal explanations can be identified. In reverse
order of importance, these are related to free-riding opportunities, state
interests and variation in pull-factors.
Free-Riding Opportunities
Similar to the NATO burden-sharing debate, there have been protests and
free-riding accusations from the main receiving countries as well as resulting
threats by some states to opt out of the Geneva Convention for the
Protection of Refugees to which all OECD countries are signatories. A
number of scholars, most prominently Suhrke (1998), have suggested that
refugee protection has (at least in part) important ‘public good’
characteristics. Suhrke argues that the reception of displaced persons can be
regarded an international public good from which all states benefit.
In her view, increased security can be regarded as the principal (non-
excludable and non-rival) benefit, as an accommodation of displaced

12. persons can be expected to reduce the risk of them fuelling and spreading the
conflict they are fleeing from. A public good is defined by its properties of
non-excludability and non-rivalry. It is these properties which set it apart
from a private good. The provision of a public good, such as the additional
security provided by refugee protection, benefits not only countries which
contribute to the protection of displaced persons but these benefits are also
extended to other actors at no marginal cost. One might therefore expect
substantial free-riding opportunities, similar to those that have been
observed with regard to the provision of other international public goods
such as collective defense. Unlike in the case of NATO burden-sharing
where empirical evidence suggests Olson and Zeckhauser (1966) that larger
countries have been exploited by small countries, no similar picture emerges
when analyzing the refugee reception burden. In fact, the evidence presented
in Table 1 suggests that in the case of the reception of refugees by OECD
countries, it is the smaller states which appear to shoulder disproportionate
burdens.
Refugee Integration and Employment Service:
Refugee Action operates the Refugee Integration and Employment Service
(RIES) in three UK regions: the North West, the south west and the south
east / south central (not including London).
What is it?
This new service provides support to recent refugees to help them to settle
into UK society and to find employment. General advice and support
regarding issues such as housing, benefits and access to English classes is
available for six months. Specialist employment advice and help to assist
refugees in job searches, job applications, CV-writing and interview
techniques is available for up to a year. A mentoring service, which matches
refugees with local mentors who can assist them in the achievement of
specific employment or social goals, is also available for up to a year.

13. Who is it for?
The service is available to all refugees who have been granted "Refugee"
status or "Humanitarian Protection" status since 1 October 2008 and whose
asylum claim was dealt with under the New Asylum Model (i.e. those who
lodged an asylum claim since March 2007).
For those refugees who were granted discretionary leave under the New
Asylum Model or who were granted any type of leave by the legacy case
resolution team in Croydon, Move-On advice for a more limited period of
time is available through our One-Stop asylum advice service at the
Bristol, Portsmouth, Liverpool, Manchester, Leicester and Nottingham
offices.
RIES in the North West
In the north-west, the service is operated directly from our Liverpool and
Manchester offices and as outreach in Bolton, Blackburn, Bury and Wigan.
The service is also supported by Manchester Refugee Support Network
which provides volunteer advocates.
RIES in the south west
In the south-west, the service is operated directly from our Bristol office and
through partner organisations in Gloucester and Swindon. In Gloucester the
service is provided by Gloucester Action for Refugees and Asylum Seekers
(GARAS) and in Swindon by Swindon Citizens Advice Bureau and the
Harbour Project. We also work in partnership with Bristol Citizens Advice
Bureaux on some cases.
RIES in the south east
In the south-east and south central, the service is operated directly from our
Portsmouth office, an outreach in Southampton, and through partner
organisations in Ashford, Brighton, Milton Keynes, Reading, Swanley and
Slough. Our partner organisations are Ashford Citizens Advice Bureau,
Brighton Voices in Exile, Milton Keynes Citizens Advice Bureau, Reading
Refugee Support Group, Slough Refugee Support and Swanley & Sevenoaks
Citizens Advice Bureau.
RIES throughout the UK

14. The Refugee Integration and Employment Service are funded by the UK
Border Agency in all 12 government office regions. Other organisations
provide the service in other regions.
Conclusion:
It has been shown that the distribution of refugee burdens in Europe is
highly unequal, even when different reception capacities of countries are
taken into account and it has been argued that this distribution is largely due
to structural factors beyond states' control. It has also been argued that given
the likely adverse consequences from 'a race to the bottom' by states trying
to avoid disproportionate burdens, the development of an effective European
(or even more far-reaching) burden-sharing regime appears to be in the
interest of both refugees and countries of destination.
The establishment of such a regime does not have rely on appeals to
solidarity but can be promoted by appealing to clear (albeit varying) benefits
that can accrue to states in terms of increased security, lower costs, ensured
adherence to international obligations, etc.
Finally, the discussion above makes the case for a more a comprehensive
burden sharing approach. It has been argued that policy harmonization and
quota-based burden-sharing regimes on their own are unlikely to provide
satisfactory results. By outlining a number of market-based approaches, the
paper hopes to stimulate the search for more effective burden-sharing
solutions. Any proposal for a refugee burden-sharing regime can expected to
be controversial but it seems that the EU provides a quite unique opportunity
to further explore the potential benefits of market based burden-sharing in
conjunction with ongoing efforts of policy harmonization which can help to
safeguard compliance with established human rights standards.
Whereas past proposals for international burden-sharing regimes have
sometime been rightly criticized for undermining individual rights and for
shifting burdens to the South, this paper suggests that the establishment of
regional burden-sharing regimes, like the one discussed here for the EU, can
bring substantial benefits with fewer shortcomings, while also being

15. politically more feasible. Given the deplorable developments of recent years
that have led to the current refugee dilemmas, the need to further explore
new options to build a more equitable, efficient and effective international
refugee burden-sharing regime appears to be more urgent than ever.