Haitian emigration

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Haitian emigration
Physical Description:
vii, 36 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on the Judiciary. -- Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law
Publisher:
U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Place of Publication:
Washington
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Haitians -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre:
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
At head of title : 94th congress, 2d session. Committee print.
Statement of Responsibility:
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-fourth Congress, second session.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029280155
oclc - 02615592
System ID:
AA00022679:00001

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
        Page ii
    Letter of transmittal
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Foreword
        Page v
        Page vi
    Table of Contents
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Background information and Brief summary of existing law--U.S. and international
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Processing procedures
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Evaluation of procedures for processing asylum and 243(h) claims
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Economic vs. political refugees
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Findings and recommendations
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Appendixes 1 to 7
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
Full Text
'J4 ,dij


94th Congress }Co MEE PRIN
2d Session O







HAITIAN EMIGRATION





SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP,

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF TIE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION




11 AA S
.- .M 1--







JULY 1976







Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary


U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-803 WASHINGTON : 1976


wow











COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

PETER W. RODINO, JR., New Jersey, Chairmau


JACK BROOKS, Texas
ROBERT W. KASTENMEIR, Wisconsin
DON EDWARDS, California
WILLIAM L1. HUNGATE, Missouri
JOHN CONYERS. JR., Miehigaa
JOSHUA EILBERG, Pennsylvania
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama
JAMES R. MANN. South Carolina
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
JOHN F. SEIBERLING, Ohio
GEORGE E. DANIELSON, California
ROBERT F. DRINAN, Massachusetts
BARBARA JORDAN, Texas
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN. New York
EDWARD MEZVINSKY; Iowa
HERMAN BADILLO, New York
ROMANO L. MAZZOLI. Kentucky
EDWARD W. PATTISON, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD. Connecticut
WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey


EDWARD HUTCHINSON, Michigan
ROBERT McCLORY, Ilinois
TOM RAILSBACK, Illinois
CHARLES E. WIGGINS, Califernia
HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York
M. CALDWELL BUTLER, Virginia
WILLIAM3 S. COHEN, Maine
CARLOS J. M3OORHEAD, California
JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
THOMAS N. KINDNESS, Ohi.


EARL C. DUDLEY. Jr.. General Counsel
GARNER J. CLINE, Staff Director
HERBERT FUCHS, Counsel
WILLIAM P. SHATTUCK, Counsel
ALAN A. PARKER, Counsel
M.NAURICE A. BARBOZA, COUn1sel
THOMAS W. HUTCHISON, Counsel
ARTHUR P. ENDRES, Jr.. Counsel
DANIEL L. COHEN, Counsel
FRANKLIN G. POLK, Counsel
THOMAS E. MOONEY, Counsel
ALEXANDER B. COK, Counsel
CONSTANTINE J. GEKAS,. Counel
ALAN F. COFFEY, Jr., Counsel
KENNETH N. KLEE, Counsel
RAYMOND V. SMIETANKA, CounseSl



SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITZENSwIP, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
JOSHUA E LBERG, Pennsylvania, Chairman


PAUIL S. SARBANES. Maryland
ELIZABETH IIOLTZMAN, New York
CIt RI STOIER J. DODI), Connecticut


HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York
WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine


GARNER J. CTINE, Counsel
ARTHUR P. ENDRES, Jr., Counsel
JANICE A. ZARRO, Assistant Counsel
ALEXANDER B. COOK, Associate Counsel
(I)










LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL


To the Members of the House Committee on the Judiciary:
There is transmitted herewith a report of the Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law concerning the
claims for asylum and requests for administrative relief under the
Immigration and Nationality Act which have been made by cer-
tain natives of Haiti. This report is part of a continuing review of
problems which have developed within the context of that Act by the
Subcommittee. This study is based on an examination of this specific
problem during general oversight hearings and on an investigative
trip of the staff of the Subcommittee to Haiti in February 1976.
It is my hope that this report and the information and recommenda-
tions contained herein will be of value to the Members of the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary.
JOSHUA EILBERG,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship and International Law.
July 1, 1976.
(i)



















Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013













http://archive.org/details/haitiratio00u nit












FOREWORI)


Over the past few years, my Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizen-
ship, and International Law has received numerous complaints from
Members of Congress, religious and civic organizations, and private
citizens regarding our Government's treatment of certain natives of
Haiti who. are in the United States. More specifically, criticism has
centered around claims made by several hundred Haitians, who have
been fouid to be excludable or deportable under the Immigration and
Nationality Act, and who claim that they will be subject to persecution
if returned to Haiti.
The Subcommittee has followed closely all developments relating
to this group of aliens and the subject has been raised. With officials
from the Departments of State and Justice during general oversight
hearings on the administration of our immigration laws. In addition,
I have personally discussed this matter with representatives from these
Departments and in June 1974 I met with the Honorable Clinton
Knox, U.S. Ambassador to Haiti (1969-73) to obtain his impression
of the problem.
Due to a continuing concern for this problem and i an effort to
fully discharge our oversight responsibilities under the Rules of the
House, I. instructed my staff, in February of this year, to travel to
Haiti and Miami, Florida to review the entire situation, with emphasis
on the procedures followed by our Government in processing claims
for asylum or for administrative relief under section 243 (h) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (which authorizes the Attorney
General to withhold deportation if an alien would be subject to perse-
cution on account of race, religion or political opinion).
The purpose of this investigative trip was to assemble background
information to assist in the preparation of this report to the Coin-
mittee. This report will not discuss specific cases (many of which are
still pending in the courts) but instead will describe and evaluate the
general situation and will make various administrative and legislative
recommendations to improve the current procedures for submitting
and adjudicating the claims which have been made by these Haitians.
In addition, staff was directed to ascertain, to the extent possible,
current political and economic conditions in Haiti, in order to assist
the Committee in understanding the various "pressures" to emigrate
from Haiti to the United States.
In an effort to accomplish this objective, staff met with the following
individuals during their five day trip to Haiti:
Heyward Isham, U.S. Ambassador to Haiti;
David R. Thompson, Deputy Chief of Mission, U.S. Embassy;
Walter S. Burke, Consul, U.S. Embassy;
John Vincent, Second Secretary, U.S. Embassy;
Edner Brutus, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Government
of Haiti;







Paul Blanchet, Secretary of State for Interior and National De-
fense. Government of Iaiti (accompanied by Gerard Dorceley, Under
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and Guy Malary, Legal Ad-
visor for Foreign Affairs) ;
Wilford Agner, Charge de Affaires of Canada, Embassy of Canada;
Ms'r. Luigi Conti. Papal Nuncio;
('hristof Scheiffele, CARE-Haiti;
('ary Ambrose, Church World Service;
Matthew Heim, Catholic Relief Service.
In Miami, staff met with:
Louis Gidel, Deputy District Director;
C. A. Rogerson, Assistant District Director. Travel Control;
William Tillman, INS investigator and Haitian Coordinator:
Jacques Mompremier, Director, Haitian Refugee Information
Center.
Staff also met with two Haitians whose claim for asylum had been
denied, and another Haitian who had been indicted for reentry after
deportation under 8 U.S.C. 1326. In addition, an asylum interview
with a Haitian was observed.
In every meeting both in Haiti and Miami, the relevant provisions
of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the U.N. Convention and
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees were discussed. More im-
plortantly, the applicability of these provisions to the Haitians, as well
as the procedures established by the Departments of State and Justice
for their implementation were reviewed in detail.
The attached study, based on the Subcommittee's continuing review
of this issue and on staff's investigative trip has been prepared to
acquaint the members of the Committee on the Judiciary with the
various aspects of this problem.

Chairman, S ubeomnnttee on Immigration,
Citizenhip, and International Law.












CONTENTS


Letter of Transmittal
Foreword
I. Background information ...................
II. B rief sum m ary of existing law U .S. and International -------------
A. Section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act-
Asylum
B. U.N. convention and protocol relating to the status of
refugees -------------------------------------------
II. Processing procedures
A. INS
B. Office of Refugee and Migration Affairs-
C. Embassy in Port an Prince
IV. Evaluation of procedures for processing asylum and 243 (h) claims---
A. INS procedures
1. Interview of asylum claimant
2. Adjudication of asylum claim ....
3. Decisionmaking authority and review of asylum cases-
B. ORM procedures
C. Embassy in Port an Prince
V. Economic vs. Political Refugees
A. Background
Nature of Haitian emigration---
VI. Findings and recommendations--
A. General findings and recommendations ..............
B. Legislative recommendations
C. Procedural recommendations---


APPENDIXES


Appendix

Appendix


Appendix

Appendix


Appendix
Appendix


Apjpe ndix


l.-Department of State guidelines for dealing with requests for
asylum by foreign nationals, dated January 10, 1973_____
2.-Code of Federal Regulations relating to aliens and nation-
ality-asylum (8 CFR 108) and INS relating operations
instructions
3.-Form 1-589; "Request for Asylum in the United States";
dated September 1, 1974-
4.-Immigration and Naturalization Service, Miami District
Office, submission concerning the processing of Haitian
asylum applicants
5.-Chronology of events relating to asylum ....
6.-1968 U.N. protocol relating to the status of refugees and
pertinent articles of the 1951 convention relating to the
status of refugees
7.-Correspondence concerning Haitian refugees
(VII)


Page
iii





5
1
1

1
2
3
3
4
5
6
6
7
8
8
9
9
10
13
i3
14
14













I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION


The United States experience with Haitians claiming asylum actu-
ally dates back to September 1963, when the first boatload of Haitian
aliens arrived at West Palm Beach. Florida and claimed they would
be persecuted if returned to their native country.
Their claims were rejected by the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (hereinafter INS) and INS's findings were upheld by the
Board of Immigration Appeals. The aliens then sought judicial re-
view of their deportation order and it was likewise unsuccessful.
Subsequently, asylum was granted to 118 members of the Haitian
Coast Guard who had engaged in a revolt against the Duvalier
Government.
The current problem however stems from those Haitians who en-
tered the United States in 1972 and thereafter and who have claimed
they would be subject to persecution if sent back to Haiti. Some 1700
such cases have come to the attention of INS and, according to INS.
many of these aliens actually resided in the Bahamas for 6 to 10 years
prior to their arrival in the United States.
Their requests for asylum or for administrative relief under section
243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (hereafter referred to
as the Act or the INA) have been generally denied by INS. Further,
the courts, without exception, Jave refused to reverse these adminis-
trative findings denying relief.
The general position of INS was expressed by Commissioner Leon-
ard Chapman in the following manner: W
Unlike other large alien nationality groups which have fled sudden and in-
tolerable political changes in their respective countries-for example, Hungary,
Cuba and Vietnam-almost all of the Haitian claimants seek to enter the United
States or to remain here for the purpose of obtaining employment, as do the
many thousand of other aliens who come to this country illegally.
The Department of State concurs with INS's general view that most
Haitians seeking asylum are "economic" rather than "political" refu-
gees, although they have expressed reservations about the "state of
human rights" in Haiti.
Over 500 Haitian aliens are currently seeking judicial review of
their final orders of deportation or exclusion. All of the aliens in-
volved in this litigation have raised the issue of a claim to asylum.

I. BRIEF SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAW--17NITED STATES AND
IN-TERN-ATIONAL
A. SECTION 243(h) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT-ASYLUM
Section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes
the Attorney General to temporarily withhold deportation of an alien
who "would be subject to persecution on account of race, religion, or
political opinion." The decision to withhold deportation by the At-
(1)


73-803-76-----2







torney General is entirely discretionary and the burden of proof rests
upon the alien applying for this administrative relief.
The granting of asylum, oi the other hand, is exclusively an admin-
istrative procedure. NeveItheless, in order to comprehend the concept
of asylum, one must refer to both section 243(h) of the Act and the
Iv)isions of international law on the subject.
The standard of proof required, and l)rocedues followed, in 243 (h)
ases and requests for asylum are very similar. It must be noted that a
decision on one is not conclusive with'respect to the other; and, in fact,
these two claims are sometimes adjudicated in a consecutive fashion.
It is clear from the administrative opinions and court decisions
which have interpreted section 243 (h), that the alien's burden of proof
in establishing the )ossil)ility of "persecution" is extremely difficult
to satisfy and that general statements will not suffie.
Administrative relief regarding the possibility of persecution iunder
Section 243(h) andl grants of asylum have been granted infrequently
and generally to those who have been members of dissident political
groups, active political figures, or those who have been highly critical
of the government currently in power in the alien's native country.
At the same time, the courts have consistently indicated that an
applicant for relief under section 243(h) or for asylum must be given
a reasonable opportunity to present his claim and each claim niut be
adjudicated individually based on all of the facts in the case.

B. U.N. CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL RELATING TO TIE STATUS OF
REFU GEES
Articles 32 an(1 33 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
deal with the expulsion or return of refugees. Article 32 specifically
l)rohibits expulsion of a "reftigee lawfully" within the party's terri-
tory except on "grolld(1s of national security or public order." It albo
requires that "the exl)lllsion of such a iefuigce shall be only ill r-
suance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law."
Article 33 prohibits tle ex)ulsion of a refugee to a country "where
his life or freedom would be threatened on accomt of his race. religion.
nationality, membership of a particular s :ocial group, or political
opiion."
In testifying before the Senate IForeign Relations Committee which
was considering the 19(;7 Protocol, State I)epartment officials main-
taine(l that Section 241 and 243(h) of the Inimigration and Nation1-
ality Act were c()lsistenlt with and satisfied the provisions of the
Protocol and t l"It additional legislation was not required to implelci lt
its provision.
While the Inite(l States was not a signiatory to the UN Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees, the listed States deposited it,
accession to the 1rotc)(l lelati lg to the Stat us of Refugees Novem-
her 1, 1968 wi(h11 incol'l)orate( Articles '2 tlrouh 35 of the Conventionl.
Iaiti either signed nor acce(led to either the Convention or tile
rotocol Relating to t he St at us of Refuree.








III. PROCESSING PROCEDURES
A. INS
Under 8 CFR 108.2 an asylum applicant in the United States is
required to appear before an Immigration officer to present his
application. INS is required to obtain the views of the Department
of State on the application unless in the opinion of the District Direc-
tor "the application is clearly meritorious or clearly lacking in sub-
stance." In other words, in "doubtful" cases, the Department of State
is contacted for an opinion as to whether the alien would be subject
to persecution in his home country. At the same time, if a claim is
considered to be "clearly lacking in substance" the Department of
State is given an opportunity to provide information within 30 days
which may be favorable to the asylum applicant.
If an applicant for admission to the United States requests asylum,
his request is considered by the INS district director even if the request
is initially made after the alien has been referred for an exclusion
hearing before a special inquiry officer (immigration judge). If the
request is made during an exclusion or deportation hearing, postpone-
ment of the hearing is sought for a decision by the district director
on the asylum request.
INS regulations also specifically provide that denial of an asylum
application "shall not preclude the alien, in a subsequent expulsion
hearing,, from applying for the benefits" of Section 243(h) and of
the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Exclusion proceeding
Exclusion proceedings are initiated in the cases of Haitians who
are apprehended at the time of their arrival in the United States. They
have not "entered" the United States in the legal sense of the term,
but are allowed to physically remain in, the -United States, while the
exclusion proceedings are conducted before a special inquiry officer.
If asylum is requested by such an alien, he is interviewed by an INS
inspector or border patrol agent through an interpreter in his native
Creole language, as soon as possible after his apprehension.
The interview is recorded and lasts approximately twenty minutes
to an hour covering all the information on the Form 1-589. The inter-
viewer advises the Haitian briefly of the nature of asylum and explores
any allegations which are made concerning past persecution or possible
future persecution in Haiti. Followin( the inter-iew, the Form T- 89
is completed based unon the statements which have been made by the
asylum applicant and the interpreter then translates to the applicant
the, completed form which is then signed by the applicant.
At no time is the asylum applicant advised of his right to counsel,
or in this particular case, of the availability of counsel. Counsel is
permitted upon the Haitian's request.
The asylum request is then adjudicated by an Immigration Ex-
aimner in the Travel Control Section (in the Miami District Office).
Three possible courses of action can be recommended to the District
Director, who is responsible for making the final decision: (1) ap-






proval of the asylum application; (2) deferral of a decision in "doubt-
fui" cases until the Department of State has rendered an advisory
oInmon; and (3) denial of the application for lack of substance.
Irpcrtation proceedings
Deportation or expulsion proceedings are initiated when an alien
is apprelhenlded after his arrival into the United States. At the time
Of apprehension, or as soon as an interpreter is available, the Haitian
is advised of his legal rights; including the right to counsel at his own
expense.
According to INS. the Haitians usually waive their right to legal
representation by executin Form 1-214. The apprehending officer also
normally obtains a brief statement from the Haitian indicating
method of entry into the United States and whether or not the alien
desires to apply for asylum.
The actual asylum interview is almost identical to the interview
earlier described in the exclusion proceeding except that it is con-
ducted by a criminal investigator rather than an Immigration Inspec-
tor or Border Patrol agent.
Another difference is that the asylum applicant is advised of his
right to counsel; not, however, the availability of counsel.
As in an exclusion proceeding, the asylum request in a deportation
proceeding is also adjudicated by an Immigration Examiner in the
Travel Control Section and the procedures followed are identical.
More detailed information concerning the procedures was prepared
and submitted by the INS District Office in Miami and it can be found
in the appendix.

R. OFFICE OF REFUGEE AN-D MIGRATON AFFAIRS
As noted earlier two categories of cases are referred to the Depart-
ment of State for information on the possibility of persecution in
Haiti. The first category of cases are the "doubtful" cases (commonly
referred to as Category II) in which an advisory opinion is requested
of the Department of State on the persecution issue. The Category III
cases include those cases wich INS feels are "clearly lacking in sub-
stance." and the Department of State is provided an opportunity to
submit any information within a thirty day period which may be
favorable to the asylum claimant.
In both categories of cases, INS forwards to ORM the completed
Form I-5S9, a transcript of the interview I with the asylum claimant.
and any su)orting docmnentatin which has been submitted. Ipon
receipt of this information, the following alternatives areT available to
ORM:... .
(1) a final recomn-endat ion may )e reached in coordination with the
aitian desk:
(2) an advisory opinion may be requested from the Haitian desk
before a recommendation is finalized:
(3) additional information may be requested, and an advisory opin-
ion may Lw sonu'nt, from the U.S. Embassy in Haiti: or
(41 a requestI may be made to INS to re-interview the applicant to
obtain more information on specific allegations or statements made
b)y him.

1 TNM trytriietlnnw onily ro-lwirp a ininary of the Interview to be sent to ORM and It was
zntcIl-ir whIth was the usual preedure.







It should be. noted that a decision to approach theEinbassy is re-
viewable by the Haitian Desk. In some cases, the Desk has *overrulled
ORM's decision not to go to the field in a particular case, but Staff was
advised that the Desk has never reversed an ORM decision. Lo go to
the field in a particular case. Estimates vary from one peremt to ten
percent with regard to the number of Category II and Category III
cases in which the assistance of the Embassy is requested. The Depart-
ment of State officials revealed that there are no guidelines or criteria
to govern the types of cases which are referred to the Embassy for
their comments and recommendations but that these decisions are made
on a case--case basis.
If the Embassy is approached, the entire record, staff was told, is
generally forwarded to the Embassy. This does not appear to be the
case in fact.
State Department officials claim that every attempt is made by the
Embassy in Port au Prince to verify the factual allegations which are
raised by the asylum claimant. In addition, according to the State
Department, efforts are made to verify addresses, employment, and to
corroborate the occurrence or events which are mentioned in the
asylum claim.
The State Department recommendation, whether or not the Em-
bassy is consulted, is made with the concurrence of ORM and the
Haitian desk and it is forwarded to the INS district office along with
any memoranda which have been prepared.
C. E31BASSY IN PORT AU PRINCE
In a small percentage of cases, the Embassy in Port an' Prince is
contacted for its advice and a recommendation with regard to the per-
secution issue in a particular case. This information is 'foilwarded to
ORM as soon as possible, but, as will be discussed later, serious prob-
lems have occurred with regard to verifying the factual allegations
contained in the caim for asylum.
Embassy officials also attempt to monitor the return and debriefing
by Haitian officials of those Haitians who are deported 'from the
United States. This monitoring is a recent development and has been
accomplished in response to an invitation extended by the Government
of Haiti to observe the debriefing of these returnees.
IV. EVALUATION OF PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ASYLUM AND 243 (h)
CLAIMS
Brief background
Section 243(h) of the Act and the administrative procedures to
implement that section have been in existence for many years. On the
other hand, despite ratification of the Protocol Relating to the Status
of Refugees in 1968, formal State Department guidelines and a gen-
eral policy relating to asylum were only issued on January 4. 1972. and
INS regulations were not promulgated until December 3, 1974. Simi-
larly, a detailed application form for asylum (1-589) was not prepared
until September 1974.
In short, development of this country's asylum policy has been
sporadic. In fact, there has been no uniform or systematic establish-
ment of asylum policies and procedures by either the Department of
State or Justice. It appears that they have been adopted only in re-
sponse to emergent situations, such as the attempted defection of a








Lithuanian seaman, Simas Kudirka, and the Haitian refugee situation
in Florida.
It should be remembered that during Senate consideration of the
V.N. Protocol on Refugees in 1968, the Department of State noted
that legislation was not required to implement the protocol and that
flexibility was desirable. Regrettably, this flexibility has resulted in an
ad hoc approach to refugees claiming asylum and only in recent year
have efforts been made to regularize or to insert elements of due proc-
ess into these procedures.
On the other hand, there is a substantial body of case law and
]ni numerous adliinistratiN-e interpretations concerning the "political
persecution" provisions set forth in section 243(h) of the Immioration
and Nationality Act.
A. INS PROCEDURES
1. Li terlew of asyblm claimant.-At the current time INS officers
make every effort to interview persons claiming asylum as soon as
possible after their apprehension or when the alien voluntarily ap-
pears and requests asylum. It is questionable whether this procedure
provides a sufficient opportunity for the alien to fully and fairly pre-
sent his asylum claim. An interview was observed in which it was
nippar-ent that the alien was extremely nervous and did not fully corn-
prehend the nature and meaning of asylum. It was evident that
lcaiuse of his emotional condition some information was being with-
held and it has been suggested that often withheld information relates
to a prior record of imprisonment or other difficulties with the Gov-
,ernment in Ilaiti-facts which are relevant to the asylum claim.
In order for the alien seeking asylum to obtain a better apprecia-
tion of the meaning of asylum prior to making a formal statement,
it appears that he or she should be entitled to consult with an attorney,
with members of the Haitian community in the area, and with
11nN volmtary agencies which have offered assistance.
On the other hand, it has been argued that such an opportunity may
vnable some individuals to "coach" the alien and thereby increase the
possibility of misrepresentation in the form of ")atterned" asylum
statements. This possibility should not preclude an ale n from fully
1iin(lerstan(lirg and documenting his asylum claim.
This o(b,]i ye can be )etter realized bv allowing consultation with
vounsel or voluntary agencies prior to the asylum interview as long
,,s such a procedure would inot greatly delay the presentation and
consideratioi of the asylum claim. It is felt that unnecessary delay
would not result since claimants are currently afforded an opportunity
to suillnit addit ionial documentationn or evidence at any time prior to
tleir deportationl.
Frt lieliiore the ci I1elit ,,t iat noll has r esulte i lnconsistent state-
111,its and significant tim is already being expncIldcd ili order to
reconcile soie of these statements.
II short, the opportunity to consult with counsel, church representa-
ives, and friends, may actually expedite and llot delay the a.djIidicaI-
t ion of these claims.
T]he ac a :1l asVluIII st a tmeuts are recorde(l iIi their entirety with
tlle nssi(taue of al interpreter who is fluent in the I itians' native
creole language. The desirahility of utilizing the services of a








native-born Haitian who is a naturalized United States citizen should
be considered. Such a step might conceivably inject a significant "con-
fidence factor" into the interview, and possibly produce a more candid
and forthright statement on the part of the claimant.
During the interview with persons seeking asylum, the INS officer
usually propounds a series of questions, based upon the newly-devel-
oped Form 1-589. It should be emphasized, however, that the param-
eters of the "question and answer" session should not be established
by the form and every effort should be made to delve into additional
issues which could relate to the applicant's claim for asylum (i.e. the
risks he encountered in departing from Haiti and travelling to the
United States; educational and employment background; and other
activities which may be considered "political" in the Haitian sense
of the word). In order to accomplish this objective, those conducting
the interview should be familiar with the social, political and cultural
backoround of Haiti; and in order to promote uniformity it may be
desirable to have specialized individuals conducting the interviews.
At the current time interviews are conducted by several different INS
officers depending on whether it is an exclusion or deportation case.
This practice should be terminated.
Admittedly, it is extremely difficult for an alien to substantiate
his asylum claim. However, in order to facilitate this process a for-
mat should be adopted in which the interview by INS officers is keyed
to verifiable facts. In addition, the interviewee should elicit from
the claimant the names of individuals or any relatives in Haiti who
may be in a position to corroborate any events or activities which
have been given to support the asylum claim. This would have the
effect of transferring the emphasis from general statements of prior
or possible future persecution to specific events which may have given
rise to a "well-founded fear of persecution."
2. Adjudication of asylum claim.-At the present time the final de-
cision on the asylum claim is made by the INS District Director based
on the facts of each case and upon the recommendation submitted by
the Department of State in the event it is a category II or III case.
It is surprising that geneal guidelines or criteria have not been
established by the INS Central Office to govern the exercise of the
)istrict Director's authority in asylum cases. The Central Oflice. in
fact, has not been involved to any degree iii the decision-niakinc1
process. Likewise, no guidelines exist concerning when the )istrict
Office should approach the State I)epartment for an advisory opinion.
Because of this lack of participation by the Central Office there is no
central index or cumulative listing of those cases in which asylum has
been granted. It seems obvious that such a list would be most helpful in
order to provide some guidance to the various I)istrict I)'rectors as to
the types of cases which have been favorably decided. In addition.
there is no systematic review of asylum denials by the centrall Office.
It should be noted that a final decision on an asylimn request does
not have a "res judicata" effect on a later re(quest for relief under
section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. While
these two requests are based on different sets of laws-one domestic
and one inteinational-consideration should be given to combining
certain elements of these procedures in order to prevent dilatory tactics
and duplication of work.








Ilnder existing law and procedures (an( administrative and judicial
interpretations thereof), the applicant for asylum or for a stay of de-
portation under 241(h) elars a heavy burden of proof and this burden
is properly placed on the applicant. On the other hand, the govern-
ment should not summarily (ispose of his claim or make blanket de-
(cisions that applicants from a particular country would not be subject
to perecution based upon generalizations relating to the economic or
political situation in the applicant's home country. In other words,
each case should he reviewed on its individual merits and the claimant
should be given the benefit of the doubt in marginal cases,
3. De.Lionmti~nq allthor;ty ad -c?'iW of asylumn cases.-As noted
above, there is no system for internal, administrative review of asylum
denials alld the District 1)irectors appear to operate autonomously.
In view of the serious nature, of the asylum claim and the heavy
responsibilities imposed by international law, consideration should e
gLiven by INS to the establishment of a uniform and centralized re-
view system.
In the event such a system is deemed impractical, expensive, or un-
wor1kable, consideration should be given to placing the decisionmaking
authority for asylum claims in the Commissioner of INS or an appro-
priate designee in the INS Central Office.
Bv concentrating such authority in the Commissioner or by estab-
1ishing an administrative review mechanism, "uniformity of decisin-
]1akin wo uld he promoted and it would greatly facilitate coordina-
tion with the State Department.

B. O111. PROCEDURES
No gui(lelines or procedures have been adopted to assist ORM of-
ficials in determining when to approach the Embassy on a particular
as]lu request. It is felt that general procedures or criteria should be
-Otahlished and that the Embassy should be approached whenever a
factlal allegation is made which could possibly be verified by the
I j ilassv.
Likewise, it is questioial)le -whether the Haitian Desk should be
given such a sulbstantial role in determining when to approach the
EImba-sy. Surprlsinl_,y, only a small percentage of cases are actually
referred to the Embassy 1a.nd serious questions naturally arise as to
whether the State department is satisfactorily performing its inter-
lmationa] responsibilities, particularly when one considers the severe
('osequecn.1,es that may flow from an erroneous decision.
Finally, a review of a num11 er of reports which have been submitted
by OJ)M to INS' District Office in Mlamim revealed that in most in-
stances ORM reports were grosly inadequate in that they fail to re-
sioiid to the specific allegations contained in the asylum request. In
geneta, theconst itute d arbitrary (lenials, based apparently on the
socioeconomic status of the applicant.
However, it should be noted that the vast majority of cases reviewed
were soNmitwlat dated and the State IDepartment has indicated that
recent efforts have been made to improve the (uahity of their responses
to INS.
c. E,.mBAssY, iN iPtrT A17 PRINCE
Assurances have been given by the State Department on several
occasions that Embassy officials in Port an Prince make every effort to








substantiate or refute the factual allegations made by the asylum
claimant as well as to monitor the well being of deportees, after their
return.
These assurances which have been given to Members of Congress
and to Committees of Congress are not warranted. Little time has been
expended by Embassy officials in verifying allegations or in monitor-
ing the safety of the deportee after his arrival in Haiti. In fact, with
the assistance of an Embassy official an attempt was made by staff to
locate several deportees, including twenty-five who were returned
from Guantanamo Naval Base. It was unsuccessful. Apparently as-
surances relating to the well being of these deportees are based entirely
upon the viewing by Embassy officials of the deplaning and deprocess-
ing of deportees.
In this regard, one Haitian in Miami had previously been deported
and upon his return to Haiti had been incarcerated for between one
and eight months, depending on which sources is to be believed (the
Embassy estimated one month incarceration; and the deportee indi-
cated incarceration for an eight month period). Although State De-
partment officials were apparently aware that the man had been in
prison for some period of time based on his illegal departure from
Haiti they failed to mention it during the visit. In fact, State Depart-
ment officials and officials of the Haitian Government reiterated several
times during discussions that Haitian returnees had not experienced
any reprisals or recriminations.
Admittedly, there are difficult manpower, logistical, and foreign
policy problems associated with follow-up procedures to insure the
safety and well being of these returnees. Moreover, these returnees
have little incentive to maintain contacts with the U.S. Embassy, par-
ticularly since few will ever be eligible for legal immigration to the
United States.
Nevertheless, the success of the Canadian follow-up effort should be
noted. As a result of individual monitoring of the situations of two
dozen returnees-which demonstrated no reprisals-the Canadian
government was able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of its citizenry
that illegal Haitians in Canada have little reason to fear persecution if
returned to Haiti. Greatly expanded follow-up efforts by our Embassy
in Haiti will be necessary if we are to be sufficiently informed in these
cases.
EcoNoMNIc VERSUS POLITICAL REFUGEES
It is not possible nor proper to make generalizations as to the
motivations of those Haitians who have entered the United States and
claimed asylum. It is evident that a variety (and in some instances a
combination) of social, economic, demographic and political factors
are responsible for this phenomenon.

A. BACKGROUND
A 1973 Senate Report (Sen. Rept. 93-620) described the economic
situation in that country in the following manner:
Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Heisphere, with a per capita
income of about $70.00 per year. From 80 percent to 90 percent of her population
is illiterate. About nine out of ten Haitians live in desperatee poverty in rural
areas, earning $25 to $35 each year and facing a life expectancy of about 33
years. Only a small urbanized elite enjoy opportunities for education or em-
S 3-6-3




10


lioyment. Yet an estimated 50 percent of the 200,000 to 3)00,0 work force living
in urban areas are unemployed. Thus the needs of the 4.8 million Haitian people
a e painful obvious.
On November 18, 1975, William Luers, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Inter-American Affairs, Department of State. presented a similar
pict ure of the drastic situation in Haiti. 11e stated that:
Life is hard in this country. Per capita annual GNP is below $150. Per capita
alotric ii;ike is the second lowest in the world, lower than even Bangladesh.
P(ouati(n density per square kilometer of arable land is over 490 which means
th;1 t ill n11.v ca- there is less than an acre for a family farm.
RMcent testimony submitted to this Sul)committee ind cates that
Haiti has the highest infant mortality rate in the Wvestern Hemi-
Sj)lere (150 per 1,000 births) and the second lowest life expectancy rate
( age 50 ).
tiithern rp e, the level of development in Haiti is so rudimentary
1110l mnot human needs so pressing that it is impossible to list these
uleeils on a priority basis. united States assistance to Haiti, in order to
(ilQ Iage econo c developmentt and to assist the poorest segments of
the I IaitiaIn population, is currently running at approximately $19
mill ion for fiscal year 191G.
With regard to political conditions in Haiti, there has been exclusive
te-tiImny before C(omnittees of Congress and extensive discussion of
ttis subjct in various Committee reports.
In April of 1974 Senator Brooks issued a report based upon a
trip to Haiti. In that report Senator Brooke made the following
obcI.vat ios-
P'-ditival conditions have improved in Haiti during the past 2 years. While
the regime contilils to function on authoritarian lines, it has greatly diminished,
if noft :ihiu'Ined. the use of force characteristics of the previous regime in iiln-
Ilfrleenting its political o)bjetives. The political apparatus, although authori-
taIrijnI. . neither hims the capacity nor apparently the desire to obtain absolute
Iliastery over the lives of the Haitians.
It is evident thIt a laroe number of indivi(luals remain imprisonled
for .pol it I(,l I reasons", although several "anlnlesties" have significnatly
reduced t hi figure in recent years.
Ill alditiOn. both the HIuman Rights Commi-sion of OAS and Am-
iety* I(. it mtionul have strongly c(riticizel the repression and con-
tiniel violatiI of hfm an rights in Hbiti.
In t le Senate A ppropriatiois Committee observed in a report
(Sen. f(lt. 93-620) that:
Whi l t here is sOMOe evidence to ildilcate th at the grim visible terror of FrancoiR
I )vIlIer's reiifI"e t imay have subsided, it seems that autocratic rule, characterized
by an unflinching willingness to suppress PeoilIe has not.
1i a 197.-) Report (Semi. ]Tept. N1-39) the sae Senate Committee
e.xpresse~l "st ion, reservations as regards the characterr of the tlaitian
(;vovev cIlt l and fItl her Iote(i that "we recognize that the extremes of
t lie p~rey ioiis ,oveiriiieni a ve heeni at teiiiuted, i)i t we anxiously await
fit ii hr cvi% ~ciie tlhat the ( (overmnient of I fait i is, indeed, moving away
froti a uthorit arian rule."

B. NATI UE (F I(IAITIAN E IIATI( )N
A sulst an1a amount of time in Haiti was spent soliciting the opin-
i of I. anid Iiitian o(dliails and private citizens as to the reasons
for the arge scale, illegal emigration flon oaiti to the UJnit(l States.








There was a definite consensus that the vast majority of Haitians
depart-'legally and illegally-from that country primarily as the
result of economic pressures.
When queried concerning possible politically-motivated departures,
most responded that the political climate had improved under Presi-
dent Jean Claude Duvalier and that the "excesses" and "vulgarities" of
Papa Doe's regime had been curtailed. It was indicated that although
the Tonton-Macoutes remain a powerful force in the Haitian system
of government, they no longer enjoy unlimited authority to engage in
terroristics and repressive tactics against the Haitian citizenry. In
other words, the "grim visible terror" has subsided, but according, to
some, it has been replaced by a more subtle and systematic suppression
of the civil liberties of Haitians.
Unquestionably, individuals continue to suffer in Haiti because of
their political views or beliefs, as evidenced by the fact that an esti-
mated 100 political prisoners remain incarcerated. Nevertheless, most
persons interviewed maintain that positive political changes have
taken place in recent years and some noted that grants of amnesty to
several hundred political prisoners are an indication that the Govern-
ment of Haiti has abandoned the use of force and overt repression in
advancing its political objectives.
With regard to differentiating between the various emigration pres-
sures, some individuals argued that there is little distinction 'between
economic and political considerations, when a person has been deprived
of a decent way of life in his homeland. It was argued further that
since the government has failed to provide most Haitians "with the
means to survive", that this is a form of "political oppression".
While it is difficult to distinguish or categorize the various "push"
factors that lead to a decision to emigrate, it is quite clear that U.S.
immigration law and international law concerning refugees does not
extend to those who are economically oppressed. Such a classification
would include most persons in developing countries around the world.
On the other hand, if a person can demonstrate that he has suffered
unique economic hardship (i.e., distinct from the general population of
his country) and that his situation is the direct result of his political
views, these economic factors should be considered in determining
whether such person is a political refugee.
For example, if a particular Haitian could demonstrate that he has
been the victim of politically-motivated employment discrimination;
or that if returned to Haiti the Government would deprive him of his
capacity to earn a living, then he would qualify as a politi-
cal refugee.
In other words, while economic factors can properly be considered in
determining the type of persecution or the consequences of the perse-
cution, it is the motivation behind the persecution that is important.
Similarly, because of the subjective element inherent in the language
"fear of persecution, based on race, religion . ." an individual's per-
ception of that persecution is most significant. More specifically, one's
"motivation for emigration" or "fear of returning" must relate di-
rectly to or be based on his race, religion, or political opinion.
Consequently, a fear that one would be subject to criminal prosecu-
tion in his homeland, or that he would face economic distress there is
not relevant under 243(h) of the INA or Articles 32 and 33 of the






12


UN Convention, which are only concerned with a limited class of
refugees. However, fear of criminal prosecution would berelevant if
the offense were political in nature, or if one's illegal departure from a
country was politically-motivated.
For example, in Kocacs v. INS, 407 F. 2d 102 (1969), it was held
that even though punishment against a Yugoslavian crewman on re-
turn to his native country might take the form of punishment for
having deserted hIs ship, a 243(h) stay was proper if the punishment
was a result of ls having sought political asylum in the U.S. and
punishment on return was political in nature.
With regard to the general issue of Haitian emigration, Senator
Brooke includedd in an April 1974 trip report, after detailed consid-
eration of the matter, that
Many uf the ttaitian exiles, however, are more "economic" than "political"
refugees. Conditions in Haiti are such as t create a desire in the educated
classes to miigrate to the United States and elsewhere in order to improve their
standard if living. However, entry visas into the United States are difficult to
,)irAtin. The mily other way to gain entry is to claim to be a "political refugee" as
"ec0-omic refugees" are not accorded sanctuary. Hence, the only alternative is
to claim -p'litical refugee" status even though the true reason for leaving Haiti
is an fcfonomic one. This is what has happened in the cases of many Haitian
exiles seeking permanent residence in the United States.
Most persons interviewed agreed with this assessment of the situa-
tiol. Itowever, whether an individual would be persecuted based upon
".race, religion, or political opinion" or in terms of the Convention,
"race, religionii, nationality, membership of a particular social group
or political opinion," is a question of fact which must be decided on a
case-by-case basis.
A, note(l previously, it is often very difficult for a claimant to as-
seible the evidence to substantiate his claim and it was stated in the
Aocac5 cae that -It is particularly important that an applicant for
relief under Section 243(h) have a reasonable opportuity to present
his proofs, for the stakes are high."
Ti decision in this case also relied upon the fact that the claimant
dil ot fully understand the nature of the proceedings and as a result
\\a unable "'to convey the full basis of his fear of persecution."
Ili this regard, I aitians should be iade fully aware that the follow-
irg factual information may be nost important in establishing their
claim for relief: prior instances of political persecution; prior activi-
t its protr~ing repressive mIeasures which may have been taken by the
Ihaitian (velnient, ati-government public statements or publica-
tions; prior political activities and prior convictions for "political"
('I'll l ies.
Because of the difficult burden of proof and the difficult question of
fact resnted, both the claimant and the decision-maker must be pro-
videi a great degree of flexibility in dlis.harging their respective
resjionsiilit iws.
ly, the (epartIure of many Haitians may simply be the
result of !iereices of opinion with local officials; feuds withIi neigh-
bors or members of the Tonton-Macoutes or personal difficulties with
(,:1 ;l la eifor(,ellnt (44ciUIs (law enforcement is totally a decentral-
ized fii!icuio( and in many cases local laws and customs are enforced
11Y w who pIst() 1o oflicial authority).
In suniiiiarv. it is evident that the re"Isons for emigrating from Haiti
vaIy consi(le:ably 'from case to case and( no conclusmonary statements






13


can be made with regard to whether Haitians, as a class, are economic
or political refugees.
Furtheriore, decisions by our government-both by the Executive
and Judicial Branch-that an individual Haitian is not entitled to the
status of a "political refugee" cannot be summarily dismissed as hav-
ing no foundation in fact.
Consequently, it would appear to be in the best interests of all con-
cerned if every effort is made to insure that the Haitians fully com-
prehend the concept of asylum and an adequate opportunity is pro-
vided for the full and fair presentation of their claims.
At the same time, it must be recognized that the Federal Govern-
ment has a legitimate interest in assuring that the asylum and 243 (h)
procedures are not abused for the purpose of delaying one s departure
from the United States.
V I. FINDINGS AND RECOMM31ENDATIONS
Several observations and recommendations have been made earlier
in this report and these should be considered as well as those findings
and recommendations which are set forth below:

A. GENERAL FINDINGS ANID RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The burden of proof to establish a claim for relief under the
UN Protocol and Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and
243(h) of the Act is, and should be, upon the claimant. However, since
the applicant for relief is often unable to document his claim or pro-
duce witnesses to substantiate it, it often becomes extremely difficult
for him to effectively discharge 'this heavy burden of proof. In fact,
it is often simply a question of the claimant's credibility. Because
of this situation, those requesting relief must be provided every oppor-
tunity to fully present their claims.
2. Experience has demonstrated that the asylum and 243(h) proce-
dures have been abused and consideration should be give to develop-
ing procedures to preclude such dilatory tactics.
.3. Accredited voluntary agencies operating in tIaiti should play
some role or assume some responsibility for insuring the safety and
well-being of those Haitians who have been expelled from the United
States. In addition, the voluntary agencies could provide transporta-
tion, vocational training, employment, and other services to the re-
turned Haitians.
4. Because of the UNHCR's experience in determininfr whether
persons are "political refugees" within the meaning of the U.N. Con-
vention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the Depart-
ment of State should consult the UNHCR prior to rendering- any
advisory opinions to INS on a particular case.
5. The Department of State should seek formal assurances from
the Government of Haiti that returnees will not be subject to reprisals
or recrimination.
6. Due to the uniqueness of the situation. and rccognizinu thaI t some
HFaitians have been detained in the United States for long periods
of time. INS and the voluntary arncies should consider the establilh-
ment of procedures providing for the supervised release of thes-e de-
tainees. Despite the fact that there is a high abscondee rate. 1umami-






14


tarian consideration would seem to dictate that the Haitians
be released into the custody of the voluntary agencies, if such agencies
are agreeable to providing for their care pending administrative and
judicial review of their cases.
B. LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Consideration should be given to amending section 243 (h) of the
INA to conform that provision with the UN Protocol and Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees.
2. Consideration should be given to the elimination of existing dis-
tinctions between exclusion and deportation proceedings, particularly
insofar as asylum procedures and the availability of 243(h) relief are
concerned. Experience has demonstrated that some of the current legal
distinctions between exclusion and deportation proceedings are arbi-
trary and artificial and this matter should be reviewed by the Congress
to determine whether remedial legislation is required or whether uni-
form procedures should be established for both types of proceedings.
3. The refugee provisions of the INA should be expanded to include
natives of countries of the Western Hemisphere.
C. PROCEDUIRAL RECOMMENDATIONS
INS
1. INS should establish a centralized system for administrative re-
view of all asylum and 243 (h) cases; or alternatively the authority for
such decisions could be vested in the Commissioner or another indi-
vidual within the Central Office.
2. A special asylum unit should be created within the Immigration
and Naturalization Service Central Office for the purpose of main-
i airing a central registry of all persons who have sought and who have
been granted or denied asylum or 243(h) relief. Such a unit could also
he charged with the responsibility of developing and disseminating
information within the Central Office and to the various district offices.
3. Any alien seeking asylum or 243(h) relief should be provided
with the right to counsel at his own expense and be advised of this
right.
4. INS interviews of asylum and 243(h) applicants should be keyed
to verifiable facts and should attempt to elicit the names of corrob-
orating witnesses or persons or relatives in Haiti who are in a position
to substantiate allegations that are made during the interview.
,State
1. There should be greater supervision and control over the advisory
opinion process by the Director of the Office of Refugee and Migration
Affairs and the Coordinator for Iiumanitarian Affairs, Department of
State.
2. ORM or Embassy advisory opinions must be more detailed and
should respond to every specific allegation made by the claimant where
such response is possible. If necessary, additional personnel should be
pr-ovided to accomplish this objective.
3. The Enbass at Port au Prince should bev approached in a greater
IIumber of questionable cases and sufficient staff should be provided to
that Embassy in order to process these cases.
4. Greater efforts mua be male by the Embassy in Port au Prince
to follow-up the cases of those who have been denied asylum or 243(h)
relief and who have been returned to Haiti.






15

INS/State
1. There should be greater coordination and communication be-
tween the Department of State and INS with regard to the processing
of asylums and 243 (h) cases.
2. INS personnel conducting asylum or 243 (h) interviews should be
familiar with the social, economic, and political situation in Haiti
both past and present, and State Department officials should provide
detailed briefings to accomplish this objective.
3. The Embassy in Port au Prince should be advised of the final
action which is taken by INS on each and every case where the Em-
bassy has been contacted for an advisory opinion.


















APPENDIXES



APPENDIX 1
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, D.C., January 4, 1972.1
GENERAL POLICY FOR DEALING WITH REQUESTS FOR ASYLUM BY FOREIGN NATIONALS

POLICY
Both within the United States and abroad, foreign nationals who request
asylum of the United States Government owing to persecution or fear of
pesecution should be given full opportunity to have their requests considered
on their merits. The request of a person for asylum or temporary refuge shall
not be arbitrarily or summarily refused by U.S. personnel. Because of the wide
variety of circumstances which may be involved, each request must be dealt
with on an individual basis, taking into account humanitarian principles, ap-
plicable laws and other factors.
In the cases of such requests occurring within foreign jurisdiction, the ability
of the United States Government to give assistance will vary with location and
circumstances of the request.
U.S. OBJECTIVES
A basic objective of the United States is to promote institutional and individual
freedom and humanitarian concern for the treatment of the individual.
Through the implementation of generous policies of asylum and assitance
for political refugees, the United States provides leadership toward resolving
refugee problems.
BACKGROUND
A primary consideration in U.S. asylum policy is the Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees (19 United States Treaties and Other International Agree-
inents 6223), to which the United States is a party. The principle of asylum in-
herent in this international treaty (and in the 1951 Refugee Convention whose
substantive provisions are by reference incorporated in the Protocol) and its
explicit prohibition against the forcible return of refugees to conditions of
prosecution, have solidified these concepts further in international law. As a
party to the Protocol, the United States has an international treaty obligation
for its implementation within areas subject to jurisdiction of the United States.
United States participation in assistance programs for the relief of refugees
outside United States jurisdiction and for their permanent resettlement in asylum
or other countries helps resolve existing refugee problems. It also avoids
extensive accumulation of refugees in asylum countries and promotes the
willingness of the latter to maintain policies of asylum for other arriving
refugees.
The President has reemphasized the United States commitment to the provi-
sion of asylum for refugees and directed appropriate Departments and Agencies
of the U.S. Government, under the coordination of the Department of State.
to take steps to bring to every echelon of the U.S. Government which could
possibly be involved with persons seeking asylum a sense of the depth and
urgency of our commitment.

PART Two--IANDLING ASYLUM REQUESTS BY PERSONS IN TflE UNITED STATES On
IN OTHER AREAS OUTSIDE ANY FOREIGN JURISDICTION
All U.S. Government personnel who may receive a request from a foreign
national for asylum within territory under the jurisdiction of the United States,

Updated January 10, 1973 to conform with the Foreign Affairs 1Manual.


(17)







18

or aboard a U.S. vessel or aircraft in or over U.S. territory waters or on or
iover the high seas, should become thooughly familiar with procedures for the
handling of such requests. Implementing instructions issued by Government
agencies to establish these procedures should receive the widest dissemination
among such personnel.
PROCEDURES
A. Upon receipt of a request for asylum from a foreign national or an indi-
cation that a request from a foreign national is imminent, U.S. Government
agencies should immediately notify the Department Operations Officer at the
Operations Center of the Department of State (telephone area code 202, 632-
1512). The Department Operations Officer will refer any request to the appro-
priate offices in the Department of State and will maintain contact with the U.S.
agency involved until the designated action officer in the Department of State
assumes charge of the case.
The following information should be forwarded to the Department Operations
Officer at the Operations Center when available but the initial report must not
Le delayed pending its development:
1. Name and nationality of the individual seeking asylum.
2. Date, place of birth, and occupation.
3. D ,escrption of any documentation in the individual's possession.
4. What foreign authorities are aware that the individual is seeking asylum.
5. Circumstances surrounding the request for asylum.
G. Ex.tct location. If aboard vessel or aircraft, estimated time of arrival at
next intended port or airport.
7. Reason for claiming asylum.
Description of any criminal charges known or alleged to be pending against
t1e asylim seeker. Indicate also any piracy at sea, air piracy, or hijacking
b +tckground.
9. Any Communist Party affiliation or affiliation with other political party; any
government office now held or previously occupied.
Telephone notification to the Operations Center should be confirmed as soon
:s possible with an immediate precedence telegram to the Department of
State summarizing all available information.
B. Safe protective custody will he provided to the asylum soeker and, where
i idicate(d, appropriate law enforcement or security authorities will be brought
iii as early as possible. Interim measures taken to assure safe custody may
il elude the use of force against attempts at forcible repatriation where means
01' resistance are available, taking into account the safety of U.S. personnel
wa;! using no greater force than necessary to protect the individual. Any inquiries
fr oTi interested foreign authorities will be met by the senior official present
with a response that the case has been referred to headquarters for instructions.
1.S. Government agencies should also immediately inform the nearest office
of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of any request for
asylum, furnish all details known, and arrange to transfer the case to INS
:a S Ion as feasible. Agencies should continue to follow any procedures already
in effct between themselves and INS. (For INS only: Where INS has received
.I direct request for asylum and has assumed jurisdiction over a routine case in
which forcible repatriation or deportatP in is not indicated, INS may follow
existing notification procedures in lieu of the special alerting procedure to the
Department of State described flbove.)

PART TIREE-IIANIDLING ASYLUM REQUESTS BY PERSONS WVITuIN FOREIGN
JURISDICTIONS

I. GENERAL PROCEDURES
These regulations set forth procedures for all U.S. Government agencies abroad
in (dealing with asylum requests at U.S. installations, vessels or aircraft in
fi)rei~n Jurisdictions.
A. (iranting Asylum
While it is the policy of the U.S. not to grant asylum at its units or installa-
tions within the territorial jurisdiction of a foreign state, any requests for U.S.
asyln should he reported in accordance vith the procedures set forth herein.







19

B. Granting temporary refuge
Immediate temporary refuge for humanitarian reasons, however, may be
granted (except to board aircraft because of their vulnerability to hijacking)
in extreme or exceptional circumstances wherein the life of safety of a person
is put in danger, such as pursuit by a mob.
.When such temporary refuge is granted, the U.S. Embassy or consular post
having jurisdiction, the Washington headquarters of the concerned agency, and
the Department of State should be immediately notified. Military units under
direct Embassy jurisdiction will report through the Embassy, unless the senior
diplomatic official determines otherwise.
To the extent circumstances permit, persons given temporary refuge should
be afforded every reasonable care and protection. The measures which can be
afforded every reasonable care and protection. The measures which can prudently
be utilized in providing this protection must be a matter for decision of the senior
U.S. official present at the scene, -taking into consideration the safety of U.S.
personnel and the established security procedures for the unit or installation
concerned.
Protection shall be terminated when the period of active danger is ended,
except that authority to do so shall be obtained from the Department of State.
Where a military installation not under direct Embassy jurisdiction is involved.
such authority shall be obtained from its Washington headquarters upon con-
currence of the Department of State. Any inquiries from interested foreign au-
thorities will be met by the senior official present with a response that the case
has been referred to Washington.
C. Aotificatirm to Department of State of asylum requests
Upon receipt of a request for U.S. asylum made by any foreign national. T.S.
personnel within foreign jurisdiction should noitfy immediately the nearest ,. S.
diplomatic or consular 1st in the country in which the request is made. Em-
bassies or consulates will forward this information to the Department of State
by an immediate precedence telegram. Agencies having their own rapid com-
munications systems with direct contact with their headquarters in the U.S.
may notify those headquarters, with information copies to the nearest Embassy
or consular post and the Department of State, by immediate precedence
message.
A. Information to be trai.smitted
With respect to requests for temporary refuge (whether or not granted) or
for asylum, the following information should be furnished when available, but
the initial report should not be delayed pending its development"
1. Name and nationality of the individual seeking asylum.
2. )ate, place of birth, and occupation.
3. l)escription- of any documentation in the individual's pssession.
4. What foreign authorities are aware that the individual is seeking asylum.
5. Circumstances surrounding the request for asylum.
6.Exact location. If aboard vessel or aircraft, estimated time of arrival at
next intended port or airport.
7. Reason for claiming asylum.
8. )escription of any criminal charges known or alleged to be pending again
the asylumn seeker. Indicate also any piracy at sea, air piracy, or hijacking
background.
9.' Any Communist Party affiliation or affiliation with other p)litical party
any government ofic-e now held or previously occupied.
I. DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR ESTABTISHIMENTS

A. Requestsf' for aylim (restrictions on e.tc1ni ig Uy!!Uh)
As a rule, a diplomatic or consular officer shall not extend asylum to persons
outside of the officer's official or personal household. Refuge nmy he afforded to
ulinvited persons who are in (langer of serious harm. as from miole
but only for the period during which active danger continues. With the concur-
rence of the I department refuge shall be terminate( on receipt of satisfactory
assurances from the established national government Ilhat the refugee' Irsonal
safety is guaranteed against lawless or arbitrary actions and that the refugee
will be accorded due process of law.







20


I. IRjutijW requests
Requests of third country nationals for asylum made to diplomatic and .on-
sular posts need not be reported immediately to the Department of State when
all of the following conditions exist:
iaj Adequate host government machinery is well established which, in the
opiaioa of the Embassy, assures satisfactory protection of the asylum seeker's
ri~hts.
(b) There is no evidence of danger of forcible repatriation.
(c) Local authorities can be exlcted to assume responsibility for the asylum
seeker.
C. Coordination with host Country authorities
Action with regard to third country nationals seeking asylum should nor-
ually be taken within the over-all policy that the granting of asylum is the
right and responsibility of the government of the country in whose territory the
request is made. Unless the Embassy deems that there are cogent reasons for not
(ding so, these authorities should be informed by the Embassy as soon as prac-
ti.alde of the request for asylum.
Activities should also be coordinated by the Embassy with the representa-
tive of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNUCR), where
such a representative is resident and the Embassy deems it appropriate. The
INIICLR is a valuable instrument for providing international protection and
securing adequate legal and political status for refugees. In addition to providing
guarantees against forcible repatriation, the UNIICR seeks to secure for refugees
l-p, ,litical, economic and social rights within asylum countries.
). rflihble U.S. as,istance
The United States is prepared in the cases of selected refugees to provide
care and maintenance, and to assist in local settlement in the country of first
()ylm. r in another country of resettlement, including the United States. Such
.,illstl,-xe is normally provided through voluntary agencies under a contract
with the Department of State. In case where the Embassy or consular post
his determined that U.S. assistance is warranted, it should telegraph the Do-
Iartnent of State recommending the type and extent of initial aid and ultimate
re 'set tlemeint considered most suitable.

APPENDIX 2

(ODo: OF FEI)ERAL REGULATIONS RELATING TO ALIENS AND NATIONALITY-
AsYLI UM (8 FR 108)
PART I 08-ASYLUM
1Ip,.! Application.
l4J. 2 )ecision.
A 'TitIrrWY : Sec. 103 ; : Stat. 17: (S U.S.C. 1103.
$tI:,IE 39 Ft 41832, Dec. 1974, unless otherwise ot1d.
108.1 Application.
An app lcatifln for asylum by an alien who is seeking admission to the United
States at a land border port or prec.harance station shall be referred to the near-
(t American consul. An application for asylum by any othler alien who is within
the united States or who is applying for admission to the 'nited States at an
airport or seaport of entry shall be submitted on Form I 589 to the district
director having jurisdi('tion over his Place of residence in the United States or
over the port of entry. The apllicait's ccompanying spolse and unmarried
chilren under the age of IX years may Ibe included in the application.
108.2 Decision.
The applicant shall appear in person before an immigration officer prior to
adjudication of the application, except that the personal appearance of any
children included in the application may be waived by the district director. The
.Iit rlit director she1ll request the views of the l)e14rtment of State before mna.king
Ik d ecsion unless in his opinion the apllicatio is clearly meritorious or clearly
lckirig in substance. The district director 1my approve or deny the application
ii the exercise of discretion. The district director's decision shall be in writing,







21

and no appeal shall lie therefrom. If an application is denied for the reason that
that it is clearly lacking in substance, notification shall be given to the Depart-
m.ent of State, with opportunity to supply a statement containing matter favor-
able to the application, and departure shall not be enforced until 30 days follow-
ing the date of notification unless a reply has been received from the Department
of State prior to that time. A case shall be certified to the regional commissioner
for final decision if the Department of State has made a favorable statement, but,
notwithstanding, the district director has chosen to deny the application. If any
decision will be based in whole or in part upon a statement furnished by the
Department of State, the statement shall be made a part of the record of proceed-
ing, and the applicant shall have an opportunity for inspection, explanation, and
rebuttal thereof as prescribed in 103.2(b) (2) of this chapter. A denial under
this part shall not preclude the alien, in a subsequent expulsion hearing, from
applying for the benefits of section 243 (h) of the Act and of Articles 32 and 33
of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
[39 FR 41832, Dec. 3, 1974, as amended at 40 FR 3408, Jan. 22, 19751

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE OPERATION INSTRUCTIONS

Operations Instructions
108.1 Requests for asylum. (a) General.-An alien who requests asylum shall
be interviewed by an immigration officer and given an opportunity to fully present
his case. Form I-589 shall be used, unless in the interest of obtaining an expedi-
tious decision the district director determines that the Form should be waived.
If Form I-5 is used, it shall be reviewed to insure that all questions have been
answered and that the applicant has no additional factors he may wish to have
considered. In the case of an alien not required to submit Form 1-589, the oral
interview should cover the questions set forth in the Form. In every case, the
original Form 1-589 or a summary of the alien's oral statement, with the district
director's decision, shall be included in the subject's "A" file. Form G-325A
checks shall be conducted, if deemed appropriate.
In general, asylum requests will fall into one of the following three classes:
Class 1. Cases clearly meriting asylum.-These requests may be granted
without referral to the Department of State. However, a copy of the ap-
proved Form 1-589 or a summary of the alien's oral statement, as appropri-
ate, shall be promptly sent to the Director, Officer of Refugee and Migration
Affairs, Department of State, for information and statistical purposes,
Class 2. Doubtful cases.-Where the information furnished is insufficient
to clearly warrant approval or denial, a copy of Form 1-589 or a summary
of the alien's oral statement, as appropriate, and supporting evidence shall
be sent to the Office of Refugee and Migration Affairs for its consideration.
No further action shall be taken in the case until the views of the Office of
Refugee and Migration Affairs have been received.
Class 3. Asylum requests that do not appear to have substanc.e.-Cases
determined by the district director not to have substance will be denied and
the applicant so informed and a copy of Form 1-5,9 or a summary of the
alien's oral statement, as appropriate, with relating documentation will be
airmailed to the Office of Refugee and Migration Affairs. If no recommenda-
tion is received from the Office of Refugee and Migration Affairs within
30 days, action will be taken to enforce departure, if appropriate. If an
unfavorable reply is received prior to the expiration of 30 days, action to
enforce departure may be taken immediately.
Inh any instance in which the Department of State recommends favorably but
an adverse decision has been entered or is contemplated, the case shall be cer-
tified to the Regional Commissioner for final decision. If the Regional Commis-
sioner concurs in the decision of the district director he shall refer the matter
to the Associate Commissioner, Examinations, Central Office, for adviS)ry
Opinion.
In any case within class 2 or 3 in which the district director has denied the
application for asylum, the applicant shall be notifivd that if expulsion proceed-
ings are instituted he may be represented by counsel and may apply for with-
holding of deportation under section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act and for the benefits of Articles 32 and 33 of the Convention Relating to the







22


Stajus of Refugees in the course of such proceedings, if he so desires. If an
expulsion hearing has been concluded prior to submission of such application,
the alien shall be advised that he may move to reopen the proceedings to apply
filr the benefits (if section 243(1h) of the Act and of Articles 32 and 33 of the Con-
vention Relating to the Status of Refugees if such application was not made
during the hearing.
0 1I 10W 1 (a ) It'v?- Ix cf
(b) Applicants at border ports and preclearanee Stations.-An applicant for
adiais-in at a border port or preclearance station who requests asylum shall
or(linarily be referred to the nearest American consulate. However, ports of
ntry and pre-clearance d-tations must remain alert to unusual cases which may
involve sensitive factors. Ill any such case the circumstances shall be furnished
telephonically to the Associate Commissioner, Examinations, Central Office. Cen-
tral Office will furnish specific instructions in these special cases. (Revised.)
ic) Applieanb opt caport.N (1r airport in the 'nited Statcs.-An alien who
requests asylum at time of apl)lication for admission at a seaport or airport of
entry, before (,r during an exclusion hearing, or subsequent to such a hearing,
shall execute Forin 1-589, if requested by the district director, and shall be in-
terviewed by an immigration officer to (determine the basis for his request. If
ilhe district director is satistied as to the validity of the alien's contention that
hic would be subject to persecution if he returns to his home country, the alien
slall be paroled or reparoled in increments of a year with permission to work.
in the case of an alien who requests asylum during an exclusion hearing, the
special inquiry officer shall be requested to postlone the hearing. Further action
in the case shall be held in abeyance pending decision on the asylum request.
Each case in whicl a request for asylum has been granted shall be reviewed an-
nually to determine if ti need for asylum continues, and if administrative
reminedy i- availb!e in the circumstances. (Revised.)
(d4 ('r, wcu-A crewmn requesting asylum shall be handled pursuant to
to '1.5;;.1 ( f) and (1)1 253.2. Ilowever. in every case ili which the crewman
normally w 1ul not he granted parole thereunder, the request shall be processed
in accordance with class 2 or 3. OI 108.1(a). If the vessel departss, the alien shall
be paroled until his case can )e resolved. unless the (istrict director, in his dis-
cret io, detrines t lhat the alien should be (letained. ( Rcri"".)
Ie Nto~ waupx.-When an alien who arrived as a stowaway requests asylum,
full liarticular s required by Form 1-5M) shall be furnished telephonically to
tihe Associate CImissioner. Examinations, Central Office, who will obtain the
\ivws oif the eI )cartment of State and furnish ii-tructions to the reporting office.

f A wi. u ithin the united $',t. (1) Asylum reqmu-.t prior to deportation
hcarinq.--Any alien within the lnite(l States who requests asylum, including
a crewman ,r stowaway, shall ie interviewed as set forth in (M 108.1(a).
If the iri1t director is .atisie(l as to the vali(lity of an alien's contention
that he would ie subject to persecution if he returns to his home country, the
alien shall, if eligible therefor. Ie granted extension of stay or adjustment of
status. If ,xtenimi or adjust 1ent is not available to him. voluntary departure in
inu.rennts of a year with lermissimi1 to work shall be granted. If an alien is not
eligible top adiup r t permanent resident status, such as I crewman or native of
Ili WV, ern Ilenisiihere. le shall be furnished appropriate advice concerning
I he I1r )'edurc for o a ining an immigrant visa. Eacl case shall be reviewed on
an annual basis to determine if the facts surrounding the alien's claim to politi-
,ail asylun c.ntiane to, exisP. If so, his eligibility for administrative relief shall
again be reviewed.
A qujjlified a lieun from a ('ommunist 4ir ('ommiunist-dominated country or a
(.,t1ntry within lh general (ire of ti Middle East is definedd in section 20
a 7l of 1h4 Art slmuld ie considered for Ilhe benefits 4f the plroviso to that
section, and if it appears he will become eligible thereunder, he shall be placed
in w1olunta ry eltpartuire status until he acquires the necessary residence in the
!United States.
In any case in which, after preliminary interview, it appears that there is
(clearly n, bais for the alien's intentionn that 1e would he persecuted if he
returns to his home country, he shall be so Informed. However, he shall be
given n opportulity to apply for extension of stay or adjustment of status. if
othlur \ike ci iile. Ill any 4.AI-e ill whicil the alien d 1es not withdraw his request







23

for asylum the district director shall process the request in accordance with
class 2 or class 3, 01 108.1 (a). (Revised.)
If after issuance of an order to show cause and prior to commencement of
hearing an alien requests asylum, the procedures set forth in the immediately
preceding paragraphs shall apply, and a hearing shall not be scheduled until
action on the request has been completed.
(2) Asylum request during course of deportation proceedings.-In any case
in which deportation proceedings have been initiated and the alien or his repre-
sentative introduces a request for asylum, the special inquiry officer shall post-
pone the hearing to enable the district director to fully consider the bona fides
of the request. If the district director determines that asylum should be granted,
the special inquiry officer shall be requested to terminate the proceedings and
the alien shall be granted voluntary departure in increments of a year with
permission to work. Each case shall be reviewed annually to determine if the
need for asylum continues to exist and if any administrative remedy may be
available to the subject.
In any case in which, after preliminary interview, it appears that the alien's
contention that he would be persecuted if lie returns to his home country is
questionable, he shall be so informed, advised that he may present an applica-
tion to the special inquiry officer for withholding of deportation under section
243(h) of the Act and for the benefits of Articles 32 and 33 of the Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees, and asked if he wishes to withdraw his
request for asylum. He shall also be advised that, if the district director should
deny his request for asylum, he may still pursue an application for the benefits
of section 243(h) and of Articles 32 and 33 of the Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees before the special inquiry officer. In any such case in which
the alien does not withdraw his initial request for asylum, the district director
shall process the request in accordance with class 2 or 3, 01 108.1 (a). (Revised.)
(3) Asylum request after completion of deportation hearing.-In any case
in which an alien requests asylum after completion of a deportation hearing,
the district director shall fully consider the bona fides of the request. If the
district director determines that asylum should be granted, the alien should be
granted extension of voluntary departure or stay of deportation in increments
of a year with permission to work. Each such case shall be reviewed annually
to determine if the need for asylum continues to exist and if any administrative
remedy may be available to the subject.
On the other hand, if it appears after preliminary interview that there is
clearly no basis for the alien's contention that he will be persecuted if he
returns to his home country, he shall be so informed. If the alien has not availed
himself of the opportunity to present a claim of persecution during a deporta-
tion hearing, the request for asylum shall be regarded as a last minute delaying
tactic unless the alien satisfactorily explains why he is making the claim of
persecution for the first time, and no further review of the case shall be made
although the Office of Refugee and Migration Affairs will be informed of the
facts of the cases and the finding of the district director. (Revised.)
(g) Definition of "home country".-The term "home country", as used in this
01. means the country of birth or nationality or country in which firmly re-
settled.












24




Apioi.NDIX 3


FM APP10wed
0MH No. 04 3-RGS60


UNiTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mi.1RAT10N ANL NATURALIZATION SENV. ICE


REQUEST FOR ASYLUM !I
IN THE UNITED STATES SOte:

(Execute in Duplicate) .ae.

INSTRUCTIONS: This form must be presented to the office of the immigration and Naturalization Service having jurisdic-
tion over your place of address.


NOTE: If additional space is needed to complete answers, use a separate sheet and identify your answer with the number
of the corresponding question.


. NAME Lasi, m CAPS)




3. Ai:t. In :-tied ttes





6A,1 Gile n ~~ Iisd a y 1,ce


(First)


Usd8 1.~




4. City bC~.ui~try iA


2. Natlonalty




5. Dat, of B (Mo.. Day/Year)


7. F 2.kmbres ;Nainas id Spou e and Children) Piae o Blrth >ate .A u~r~h


9 .* ...


C(-r.try Aheie Lo-ited included in Asylum
Rquesat. iO in U.S.,?
(Yes or No)









0. Meale


i1. A ideies lur Peat Fie Yeats:


Re l#t tonihip lmmrVaiion Stat us


t. Last Arrr~.A In p.s. (D,.te)






14. 1r~ ci ki~ ~ T~.e and Nonter


Place


Plate


Date


1't a-, 1<..; Itt umeni ketp.ireij trs, Ft~,me i2.~.untry

It "~ es espia.n.


F-s 1-.59
1++ .14+


Type of Entry Da-e to Whi1 Admitted i Last Vstttnde


T,:-

1)P




-t Aned, t, Any 4iftiollty Wtl tnin-gl
'I othr 1:07-Ye. EJN.
|r '++ther" e+j lain. EaKpliin






it, Are u sti tlsiiit Ii any ite, itty?
o N
Jf "yq*l" esplin.


OVER)


(Addrest)


:-1. 09,tr Rti*t1V*S 44 U.S.










25


17. I you return to your country, for what specific reasons do you believe you will be persecuted?.
Race J Religion Nationality f Political Opinion Membership in a particular social group
Other

18. Have you or any member of your family ever been detained, interrogated, arrested, convicted and sentenced, or imprisoned because of the above?
Li Yes M No II -yes", cite instances:


Have you ever been arrested for any other reasons? M Yes


= No If "Yes", please list:


19. Why in your opinion were the actions cited in Item 18 above taicen against you?


20, Did you belong to any organizations) which were considered hostile to the interests of your Home Country?
F Yes No.
If "Yes", explain


21. Have you ever expressed political opinions or acted in a manner which was regarded by the authorities an opposed to the interests of your Home
Government? M- Yes M No If "Yes", explain.


22. If you base your claim for asylum on current conditions in your country, do these conditions affect your freedom more than the rest of that
country's population? --i Yes -- No If "Yes", explain;










26


,. -, )* t aUi ctlS that yQ. W itI result W persecutioni ya Hente, Cou,,,,y? ,Yes C3 No it -Yes", eplan:


24. Its. y fms# suffered or been ntimidated in any way becise of your absence or your ictios? E] Yom


F No


25. Do yo base you claim for asylum on the fact that you overstayed your leave brad? L-j YOes


i No If "Ye.", espl..n:


21 P-. yOur requ.est ftor 4tylur becomrn kc ,wn t.. the authorities of your Home Country?


Yes L:7j No It "Yes"'. how ea* this become


What do you thbok woold happen to y u it you return





Why f



27. Ilave you e*N i le j 1- fo a)m in any other' country' ) s No) It -Vt ", explorer what happen d.


0J) (OVER)














28. Can you provide any documenlation or evidence (letters, newspapers, court orders, etc.) in support of your request? ] Yes E7 No
It "Yes", list and attach:


29. Is there any other information relative to your case not covered by the above questions? Ej Yes


El No If "Yes", explain.


30. 1 do swear (affirm) that I know the contents of this application signed by me and that the statements herein are true and correct.




(Signature of applicant)


Subscribed and sworn to (affirmed) before me this __ day of


(Signature of Imnigration Officer adminj., fering oath) ( Tt.e)
(To be executed at time of interview)
Action by District Director:

r- Granted ED Denied


(interviewing Officer)


Dote:


"D,strict Director)


Date:


(4)


APPENlIx 4


IMMIGRATION AND NATUR XLIZATION SERVICE, MIA MI )ISTRICT OFFICE E SUBMISSION
RELATING TO PROCESSING OF IAITIAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
IMMIGRATION ANI) NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Miurni, Fla.

PROCESSING HAITIAN ASYL-M APPLICANTS

The procedures we follow in processing a typical Iaitian asylum applifaiit
vary significantly depending on whether the aPplicatioil is handled in exclusiu
or deportation )r4)eeding.4.


A.D. 19


GPQ -C-S!f,







28

EXCLU SI'N PROCEEDINGS
Lxcluision proceeings always begin at the time a Haitian arrives in the
United States. An Immigration Inspector meets the boat bringing the Haitians
and. after establishing that the occupa.ts are Haitian, in good health and with-
,t proper entry documents, he arranges to transport the group immediately
from the point of arrival to our District Office in Miami.
At tih Dist,'i,t Office, InSpe:ctors register each Haitian. They complete an
arrival d(ocuient (Form I-94), take a photograph and fingerprints and assign
a Service -A" number.
With the assistance of a Service interpreter, the Inspectors then interview
the Ilaitians. Each interview is taped and lasts anywhere from 20 minutes to
:ibout one hour. It covers all of the information needed to complete a request
for a'yluni (Form 1-589) and a biographical background statement (Form G-
,2,.a ) The interviewing Inspecter explores in detail any allegations the Haitian
tnakes concerning persecution or I)ssible persecution in Haiti.
At the conclusion of the interviews. Haitian women and children are given
copies of their arrival documents (Form 1-94) and released, usually into the
custody of the Haitian Refugee Information Center. Adult male Haitians are
detained in lieu of a $50) bond.
From the tape made of each interview, the Travel Control Section prepares a
tyl ped transcript. They also complete a request for asylum (Form 1-589), a
biographical background statement (Form G-325a) and an asylum control card
(Form SE-ISO).
An Immigration Inspector then re-interviews the Haitians with the assistance
of a Service interpreter. Thne interpreter translates to each Haitian his com-
leted request for asylum (Form 1-589), his biographical background statement
(Form G-325a) and the typed transcript of his original interview. The Inspector
makes any necessary corrections and additions and has the Haitian sign each
of the three documents in his presence.
An Immigration Examiner in our Travel Control Section then adjudicates
each Haitian's request for asy um. The Examiner reviews the documents signed
by the Haitian and recommends one of three possilble actions to the District
Director. The three possible actions, as outlined in 8 CFR 108, are: (1) to grant
the request; (2) to obtain a recommendation from the State Department before
(leciding the merits of the request; (3) to deny the request for lack of substance.
The Service immediately informs the State Department of the decision reached
by the District Director. At the samne time, we forward to the State Department
copies of the request for asylum (Form 1-5S9) and all relating documents, in-
cluding the typed transcript of the asylum interview.
When the Service denies an asylum request for lack of substance, we inform
the ,Asylumi applicant at the same time that we inform the State Department, and
w(. tatke no further action to enforce departure for thirty days, unless in the
meantime we receive (onfirmation of our decision from ti State Department.
The thirty-day waiting period allows the State l)epartmnent an opl)ortunity to
review our decision, and, if he(e.ssa ry, recoin mend reversal.
After thirty days, the Ex.imuin(r who has adjudicated the asylum requests ar-
ranges in exclusion hearing, lie sends to each Ilaitian whose asylum request
has been denied a notice to appear (Formi 1-122) for a hearing in exclusion
proceedings.
At the exclusion hearing, ani Inmnmigration Judge has always ordered the
I laitialns excluded and (leportid from the United States on the grounds that they
lac.k proper entry documents. Normally, tihe flaitians appeal the decision to the
Board of Inimmigration Apeals, and the B.I.A. usually dismisses the appeal within
about three months. Having exhausted all administrative remedies, the Haitians
may thenI file a petition for a writ of habeas corps in the United States District
'ouri a1s outlined in Setion 1()(; (1), to prevent the Service from carrying out
its order of deportation. If the District Court denies their petition, the IHaitians
iii;y appeal that decision to the United States Court of Appeals.

DIPORTATION PROCEEDINGS

Dejortation or expulsion proceedings, in contrast to exclusion proceedings,
always begin somewtimme after a iHaitian has entered the United States. Typically,
a Border Patrol Agent arrests a H1aitian who is here illegally and transports him
to Border Patrol Hleadquarters for processing.







29


At Border Patrol Headquarters, with the assistance of a Service interpreter,
the Agent first establishes that the Haitian understands his legal rights. The
Agent. can usually then obtain from the Haitian a written waiver of his right
to legal representation (Form 1-214).
The Agent next registers the Haitian. This involves completing a record of a
deportable alien (Form 1-213), taking a photograph and fingerprints and assign-
ing a Service "A" number. Often, the Agent also obtains a brief affidavit from the
Haitian describing his entry into the United States and indicating whether or not
he wishes to request asylum.
If the. Agent believes the Haitian is likely to abscond, he immediately requests
that the District Director issue an Order to Show Cause and a Warrant of Arrest.
These documents, always fully explained to the Haitian through a Service inter-
preter, tell the Haitian why he is detained and what terms have been set for
his release.
In deportation proceedings, Criminal Investigators, rather than Immigration
Inspectors or Border Patrol Agents, conduct asylum interviews. Otherwise, there
is no difference between an asylum interview in a deportation case and that in
an exclusion case.
The interviews are taped, last about an hour and cover all of the information
needed to complete a request for asylum (Form 1-589) and a biographical back-
ground statement (;orn G-325a). A Service interpreter always participates,
and the* iuterviewing Investigator explores in detail any allegations the Haitian
makes concerning persecution or possible persecution in Haiti.
From the tape made of each interview, the Investigations Section prepares a
typed transcript. They also complete a request for asylum (Form 1-589), a bio-
graphical background statement (Form G-325a) and an asylum control card
(Form SE-180).
The interviewing Investigator then re-interviews the Haitian with the assist-
ance of a Service interpreter. The interpreter translates to the Haitian his com-
pleted request for asylum (Form 1-589), his biographical background statement
(Form G-325a) and the typed transcript of his original interview. The Investi-
gator makes any necessary corrections and additions and has the Haitian sign
each of the three documents in his presence.
In deportation proceedings, as in exclusion proceedings, an Immigration Ex-
aminer in our Travel Control Section adjudicates the asylum request. He follows
exactly the same procedure that he follows in an exclusion case, reviewing the
documents signed by the Haitian and recommending one of three possible actions
to the District Director. The three possible actions, as outlined in 8 CFR 108,
are: 1) to grant the request; 2) to obtain a recommendation from the State De-
partment before deciding the merits of the request; 3) to deny the request for
lack of SUbstance.
The Service immediately informs the State Department of the decision reached
by the District Director. At the same time, we forward to the State Department
copies of the request for asylum (Form 1-589) and all relating documents, in-
cluding the typed transcript of the asylum interview.
When the Service denies an asylum request for lack of substance, we inform
the asylum applicant at the same time that we inform the State Department.
We take no further action to enforce departure for thirty days, unless in the
meantime we receive confirmation of our decision from the State Department.
The thirty-day waiting period allows the State Department an opportunity to re-
view our decision and, if necessary, recommend reversal.
After thirty days, the Examiner who has adjudicated the asylum request in-
forms the Trial Attorney that the Haitian is now ready for a deportation hear-
ing: The Trial Attorney arranges the hearing and notifies the Haitian when and
where to appear.
A hearing in deportation proceedings usually involves two stages. In the initial
stage, the Immigration Judge decides the question of deportability and gives the
Haitian an opportunity to apply for withholding of deportation under Section
243 (h). This Section, not applicable in exclusion proceedings, allows the Judge
to stay deportation because of possible persecution in Haiti.
The Judge usually allows ten days for the Haitian to file a written brief in
support of an application under Section 243(h). Then the Judge conducts a
hearing at which the Haitian can testify and present witnesses. Judges in Miami
have granted withholding of deportation to five Haitians in the past three years.
They live denied hundreds of other applications under the same Section.







30


The Haitian may appeal the decision of the Immigration Judge to the Board
of mmigration Appeals, and if the B.I.A. dismisses the appeal, the Haitian may
then file a petition for judicial review directly in the United States Court of
Appeals under Section 146 ( a).

APPENDIX 5

CIIRoNoWY oF,' EvENTs RELATING TO ASYLUM


November 1, 1968__







November 23, 1970

December 1, 1970




January 4, 1972 ----------------


January 29, 1973--

March 30, 1973--------------


August 7, 1974 ....


)e(emher 3, 1974 ....


January 22, 1975--

February 215, 1976_-


United States deposited its accession to the
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refu-
gees (incorporates Articles 2-34 of the 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of Refu-
gees). The Protocol was signed in New
York January 31, 1967 and the Senate
ratified October 4, 1968, thereby entering
into force for the United States, Novem-
ber 1, 1968.
Attempted Defection by Simas Kudirka from
Sovetskaya Litva to CGC Viilant.
State Department issued policy statement re-
affirming there has been no change in U.S.
refugee policy.
Interim instructions issued by Department of
State to other agencies regarding handling
of requests for political asylum.
Secretary of State issued general policy for
dealing with requests for asylum (up-
dated January 10, 1973, to conform with
Foreign Affairs Manual).
Immigration and Naturalization Service pro-
poses rulemaking relating to refugee travel
documents.
Final regulations issued by Immigration and
Naturalization Service relating to refugee
travel documents effective June 1, 1973.
Immigration and Naturalization Service pro-
poses rulemaking regarding asylum
application.
Final regulations issued by Immigration and
Naturalization Service concerning asylum
application (8 CFR 108); effective date
January 2, 1975.
Immigration and Naturalization Service is-
sued clarifying regulations on asylum.
Immigration and Naturalization Service is-
sued a notice of proposed rulemaking con-
cerning enforceed departure of an alien
whose application for asylum has been do-
nied for the reason that it is clearly lack-
ing in substance.


APPENDIX 6

196" T'N PROTOCOL REI, ATIN(; Tio TiE ,TATM OF REFUGEES AND PIRTTNFNT ARTICLES
{3 A2 D 33 OF TIlE 1951 CoN VE-NrToN RELATINGS TO THE $TATVS OF REFUGEES

fIOTC0OI, IRELATING TO THE STATUS1 OF REFUGEES
Tho10tqtes Partic to the present Protocol,
('wsidcring that the (Conveutlon relating to the Status of Refugees done at
Geneva on 28 July 1951 f hereinafter referred to as the Convention) covers only
tho persons who have become refugees as a result of events oeeurring before
1 Jinuary 1951,









Considering that new refugee situations have arisen since the Convention was
adopted and that the refugees concerned may therefore not wall within the scope
of the Convention,
Considering that it is desirable that equal status should be enjoyed by all
refugees covered by the definition in the Convention irrespective of the dateline
1 January 1951,
Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE I-GENERAL PROVISION
1. The States Parties to the present Protocol undertake to apply articles 2 to
34 inclusive of the Convention to refugees as hereinafter defined.
2. For the purpose of the present Protocol, the term "refugee" shall except as
regards the application of paragraph 3 of this article, mean any person within
the definition of article 1 of the Convention as if the words "As a result of events
occurring before 1 January 1951 and * *" and the words "* * as a result of
such events", in article 1A (2) were omitted.
3. The present Protocol shall be applied by the States Parties hereto without
any geographic limitation, save that existing declarations made by States already
Parties to the Convention in accordance with article 1B (1) (a) of the Convention,
shall, unless extended under article 1B (2) thereof, apply also under the present
Protocol.

ARTICLE II-COOPERATION OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE UNITED
NATION S
1. The States Parties to the present Protocol undertake to cooperate with the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or any other
agency of the United Nations which may succeed it, in the exercise of its func-
tions, and shall in particular facilitate its duty of supervising the application
of the provisions of the present Protocol.
2. In order to enable the Office of the High Commissioner, or any other agency
of the United Nations which may succeed it, to make reports to the competent
organs of the United Nations, the States Parties to the present Protocol under-
take to provide them with the information and statistical data requested, in the
appropriate form, concerning:
(a) The condition of refugees;
(b) The implementation of the present Protocol;
(c) Laws, regulations and decrees which are, or may hereafter be, in
force relating to refugees.

ARTICLE IIl-INFORMATION ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION
The States Parties to the present Protocol shall communicate to the Secretary-
General of the United Nations the laws and regulations which they may adopt
to ensure the application of the present Protocol.

ARTICLE IV-SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
Any dispute between States Parties to the present Protocol which relates to
its interpretation or application and which cannot be settled by other means
shall be referred to the International Court of Justice at the request of any one
of the parties to the dispute.
ARTICLE V-ACCESSION
'the present Protocol shall be open for accession on behalf of all States
Parties to the Convention and of any other State Member of the United Nations
or member of any of the specialized agencies or to which an invitation to accede
may have been addressed by the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations.

ARTICLE VI-FEDERAL CLAUSE
In the case of a Federal or non-unitary State, the following provisions shall
apply:
(a) With respect to those articles of the Corvention to he applied in
accordance with article I, paragraph 1, of the present Protocol that inoe







32


wititl 'the legislative jurisdiction of the federal legislative authority, the
obligations of the Federal Government shall to this extent be the sarae as
those of States Parties which are not Federal States ;
(b)l With respect to those articles of The Convention to be aplied in ac-
cordan'ce with article 1. paragraph 1, of the pres-ent Protocol that come
within the legislative jurisdiction of constituent States, provinces or can-
tols which are not, under the constitutional system of the federation, bound
t, take legislative action, the Federal Governmnt shall bring such articles
with a favourable recommendation to the notice of the appropriate author-
ities of ,S tates, provinrces or cantols at the earliest possible moment;
(c) A Federal State Party to the present Protocol shall, at the request of
ony other State Party hereto transmitted through the Secretary-General
)f'the Uiited Nations, supply a statement of the law and practice of the
Federation and its constituent units in regard to any particular provision
opf the Convention to be applied ill accordance with article I, paragraph 1.
,f the preselit Protocol. showing the extent to which effect has been given t,
that provision by legislative or other action.

ARTICLE VII-RESERVATIOYNS AND DECLARATION S
1. At the time of ac(ession, any State may make reservations in respect of
ar ticle IV of the present Protocol and ill respect of the application in accordance
with article I of the present Protocol of any pruvisiolis of the Convention other
rhan those contained in articles 1, 3, 4, 16(1 1 and 33 thereof, provided that in the
case of a State Party to the Convention reservations nade under this article
shall not extend t,) refugees in respect of whom the Convention applies.
2. Iteservationls made by States Parties -to the Convention in accordance with
article 42 thereof shall, unless withdrawn, be applicable in relation to their
obligations under the present Irotocol.
3. Any State making a reservation in accordance with paragraph 1 of this
article may at any time withdraw such reservation by a communication to that
effect addressed to the Secretary General of the United Nations.
4. Declaration made under article 40, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention
hy a SLA-te Party thereto which accedes to the present Protocol shall be deemed
to apply in respect of th, present Protool, unless upon accession a notification to
the contrary is addressed by the State Party concerned to the Secretary-General
,of the United Nations. The provisions of article 40. paragraphs 2 and 3, and of
article 44, parag;raph 3, of the Convention shall be deemed to apply imutatis
mutandi to the present Protoc.l.

ARTICLE VII-IENTRY INTO FORCE
1. The present Protocol shall come into force on the day of deposit of the sixth
instrument of accession.
2. For each State( aceding to the Protool after the depot of the sixth instru-
melt of accession the P'rotocol shall conie into force on the date of deposit by such
State of its instrument of accession.

ARTICLE IX-D)EN NCIATION
1. Any State Party hereto nmy denounce this Protocol at anytime by a notifica-
tion addressed to the Seretary-General of the United Nations.
2. Such denunciation shall take effect for the State Party concerned one year
fromn the date on which it is received by the Secretary-General of the United
Nations

ARTWC4; V--NOTWVICATIONS BY Tile sECRETARY-OENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS
The SeIretary-General of the United Nations shall inform the States referred
to in article V above (,f the date of entry into force, accessions, reservations and
withdrawals of reservations to and denunciations of the present Protocol, and
of decla rations and notifications relating hereto.

AR31CLE 11-DEjOSIT IN TIlE ARCIIIVE8 OF TIlE SECRETARY OF THE UNITED
NATIONS
A copy (if the present Protoeol, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian
and SPanish texts are e(ually authentic, signed by the president of the General







33


Assembly and by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, shall be deposited
in the archives of the Secretariat of the United Nations. The Secretary-General
will transmit certified copies thereof to all States Members of the United Nations
and to the other States referred to in article V above. *
In accordance with article XI of the Protocol, we have appended our signatures
this thirty-first day of January one thousand nine hundred and sixtyseven.
A. R. PAZHWAK,..
President of the General Assembly
of the United-Nations.
U THANT,.
Secretary-General of the United Nations.

ARTICLES 32 AND 33 OF THE 1951 CoNvNTIoN RELATING TO THZ

STATUS OF REFUGEES

ARTICLE 32-EXPULSION
1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory
save on grounds of national security or public order.
2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of- a decision
reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons
of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed-to submit
evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose
before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the
competent authority.
3. The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period
within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting
States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as
they may deem necessary.

ARTICLE 33-PROHIBITION OF EXPULSION OR RETURN ("REFOULEMENT")
1. No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any
manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom
would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership
of a particular social group or political opinion.
2. The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimeti by a
refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the
security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final
judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community
of that country.
APPENDIX T
JANUARY 28, 1976.
Hon. LEONARD F. CHAPMAN,
Commis-siner, Immigration and Naturalization Ser'ice, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. COMmISsioNER: As you know, my Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship and International Law has closely followed the developments rela-
ting to those Haitians who have illegally entered the United States and thereafter
claimed asylum.
In this regard, numerous allegations have been made that the Immigration
and Naturalization Service has violated the due process rights and civil liber-
tie of these individuals.
I would, therefore, request a detailed report regarding the steps which were
taken by the Service in receiving and processing their claims for asylumi I would
also appreciate a summary of the procedures followed or actions taken by the
Immigration Service since the apprehension on these Haitians.
I would certainly appreciate a prompt response to this request.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely,
JOSHUA EILBERG,
6'hairln?.







34

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Washington, D.C., June 29, 1976.
lion. JOSHUA EILBERG,
Chairman, Sabcommittee on Immigration. Citizenwhip and International Law,
Committee on the Jiidici#ry, Houie of fepresenfatives, Washington, D.C.
Dih.uR MR. CHAIRMAN : Reference is made to my letter to you dated Decem-
ber 16, 1975, concerning natives of Haiti under exclusion or deportation pro-
ceedings at our Miami, Florida office. For your information we have up-dated
some of the information contained in our referenced report.
As of Monday, June 28, 1976, we have 163 pending asylum cases. There are 70
natives of Haiti detained. At the present time there are 525 Haitians involved
in court cases, none of whom are detained. The number on bond is 487. There
have been 467 abscondees, 93 or whom absconded under bond and the bond
has been forfeited. In the last six months a total of 10 Haitians have beeit
deported. During the past year, 123 Haitians have arrived, without proper domu-
ments, and placed under exclusion proceedings. The number of Haitians whose
1-ourt cases have been concluded is 46. Of that number 2 have been deported, 2
are presently permitted to remain the the United States while relative visa
Ietitlons filed in their behalf are being processed, and 42 have absconded.
At the present time our records show that 84 Haitians have been given per-
mission to work and their forms 1-94 (Arrival-Departure Record) appropriately
noted. Since the early part of this year there have been 6 grants of asylum.
The number of Haitians who have agreed to depart voluntarily in the past
years is 172, 3S departures of this group have actually been verified,
Returning to the question of detention of Haitians our records show that
the average period of detention is six to eight months. The maximum period of
detention for any one individual has been about 14 months, that individual is
not now detained.

L. F. CHAPMAN, Jr.
Conmisioncr.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., April 7, 1976.
lion. J0SHJIUA EILBE,..
t chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizcnship, and Intcrnational Law,
Committee on thc Judiciary, H110se of Representatives, Wazinton, D.C.
DEAR JOS H: This is in reference to your Subcommittee's continuing investiga-
lion of the various issues relating to those Haitians in the United States who
claim they will be subject to persecuion if returned to Haiti.
As you know, based on our numerous discussions and previous correspondence,
this problem has deeply troubled me for some time. On several occasions I have
c(ommunicated my concerns to the Departments of State and Justice; and I have
attempted to keep abreast of all developments relating to the Haitian situation.
Therefore, I wish to commend you for conducting an in-depth review of this
problem and I am gratified that your Subeommittee will be preparing a com-
prehensive report to the Committee in the near future.
I am certain that this study will be of immense assistance to the members of
this Committee, and I am hopeful that your Subcommittee will continue to
monitor the situation in order to insure that our laws, poliies, and procedures
relating to asylum are adhered to by the Execuive Branch.
Sincerely,
PETER W. RoIJIo, Jr.,
Chairman,







35


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Washington, D.C., September 16, 1974.
Hon. PERn W. RoDIxO, Jr.,
Chairman, House Judiciary Committee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Following is a current report on the status of Haitians
who are illegally in the United States:
From December 1972 until August 30, 1974, approximately 1158 Haitians have
attempted entry to the United States without proper documentation or have
gained illegal entry and have been located subsequently by Service officers. Service
records indicate that 1024 of these Haitians are presently in the United States.
Only those Haitians who are believed likely to abscond are being detained.
Over 100 Haitians previously released without bond have disappeared. The Serv-
ice is prepared to release the detained Haitians upon the posting of a delivery
bond for each. As of August 30, 1974, forty-four (44) of the 1024 Haitians were in
detention. None are women or children.
Two hundred and eighty-eight (288) of the 1024 Haitians have not requested
asylum. Those who have requested asylum have been processed in the same man-
ner as nationals of any other country seeking that benefit. Each alien has been
afforded an opportunity to present his asylum claim individually for our careful
review. Before denying any request, the Service has consulted the Office of
Refugee and Migration Affairs, Department of State.
At the present time there are 35 Haitians in asylum status in the United States.
One hundred fifty-eight (158) applications for political asylum are pending.
Five hundred forty-three (543) applications for political asylum have been
denied to date. In these cases, the Office of Refugee and Migration Affairs recomi-
mended, and the District Director of this Service at Miami concluded on the
basis of all the evidence at hand, that the aliens' requests for asylum should be
denied. The denials were predicated upon the finding that the requests were
based upon economic factors, and that the aliens were not refugees within the
meaning of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
(of July 28, 1951), as modified by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
of January 31, 1967 to which the United States is signatory.
Those Haitians whose requests for asylum have been denied, and their counsel,
have been informed that they are free to request reconsideration if they have
additional evidence to present.
On October 29, 1973, a substantial number of Haitian aliens petitioned the
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, under Sec. 10( b).
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1105( b)). for judicial review of final
administrative orders of exclusion. On December 28. 1973, the court denied the
petition. The aliens' appeal is now pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Pierre v. U.S., Case No. 74-1371. The original petitioners, together viI
others joined at request of counsel, number 250.
To date 19 Haitians have been deported. Others have departed voluntarily.
The Department of State has asked our Embassy in Port-au-Prince to closely
watch the situation in Haiti and attempt to follow-up on Haitians who have re-
turned to their country. Officers from the Office of Refugee and Migration Affairs
have visited Haiti for a first-hand look at the situation. While it is difficult to
follow-up on returned Haitians as they return individually, contact was estab-
lished with some 16 returned Haitians. They have suffered no reprisals by the
Haitian Government. Other cases are being checked by Embassy officials.
Sincerely,
L. F. CHAPMAN, Jr..
Comm vision cr.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, D.C., June 12, 197.
Hon. PETR W,. RomIo. Jr..
Chairman, Committee on th Judiciary,
House of Repres"tatires,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : Secretary Kissinger has asked me to reply to your letter
of April 26, concerning Haitians in the United States who have asked for refuiigee
status.




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

T1111 *1*111111111| IIII IIII
36 3 1262 09114 0888

The situation remains generally as it was last November when former Assist-
ant Secetary Marshall Wright wrote to you. Some additional boatloads have
arrived; individual cases are still being adjudicated. Some Haitians have been
granted asylum but the majority of these people are still coitohUnited
States in search of better economic opportunities and are properly cl ble
as immigrants rather than refugees. The cases of over 200 are being heard in the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, after having lost in District Court
You will be interested to know that Ambassador Frank L. Kellogg
visited Haiti recently for a first-hand look at the situation. In addition, our
officer who directly handles the individual Haitian cases referred to us by the
Immigration Service, also visited Haiti. Both confirmed the fact that te Haiti
of today is not similar to the Haiti under the previous regime. Altihugh Haiti
still has an authoritarian government, the excesses of the past regi have been
curbed.
We will continue to carefully follow the political situation in Haiti and will
be sensitive to any changes. Requests for refugee status will be sympathetically
and carefully considered. Those Haitians who have a well-founded fear ofperse-
cution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or meme p
in a particular social group will be permitted to remain in the United States.
I hope the above information is helpful to you and the Committee. Te I mmi-
gration Service should be able to provide you with additional details oerning
numbers and status of cases.
With best wishes,
Cordially,
LINWOOD HOLTON,

for Congresional Relation&