Immigration Law Wiki
Category - Asylum
Articles
Fear interviews are part of the expedited removal process. When a person is put into the expedited removal process, if they express a fear of returning to their home country or request to seek asylum, they are first screened to see if they could establish that they have a fear of persecution or torture. Generally speaking, there are two “levels” of fear interviews, most commonly referred to as “credible fear” and “reasonable fear.” A person is said to have a “credible fear” if they can demonstrate a “significant possibility” that they will be able to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act or withholding of removal or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. A person establishing a “reasonable fear” of persecution or torture has to demonstrate a higher likelihood that they would be eligible for relief from removal. The fear screening process has been periodically altered by new rules issued by various presidential administrations. Those rules are also often the subject of litigation, making the exact process an individual is subjected to (including the standard of proof needed to establish a “credible” fear) subject to regular change. Additionally, many of the rules are applied only to a subset of individuals, often seemingly at random, due to changing logistical, diplomatic, or humanitarian factors. Therefore, the credible and reasonable fear interview process may be applied differently to different people depending on things such as when they arrived at the border, where they arrived, what country they arrived from, whether they entered at a port of entry or between ports of entry, and other considerations. At the credible or reasonable fear interview, if an individual is found by the asylum officer to have met the standard applied to them, they are then referred to proceedings where they can submit an application for asylum or other similar protections. Usually, this is done via a referral to an immigration court, where a person is put in removal proceedings initiated with a Notice to Appear. Some pilot programs such as that created by the Asylum Processing Rule created an alternative venue, where people would have their full asylum cases reviewed by an asylum officer rather than an immigration judge, on a significantly truncated timeline. If the asylum officer determines the person did not establish either credible or reasonable fear, their expedited removal order stays in place. Before removal, the individual may request review of the fear determination by an immigration judge. If the immigration judge overturns a negative fear finding, the individual is treated as if they passed their fear interview and is placed in further removal proceedings through which the individual can seek protection from removal, including asylum. If the immigration judge upholds the negative finding by the asylum officer, the individual will be removed from the United States. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 (a year in which the Title 42 pandemic border expulsion policy was in effect for eight out of 12 months), USCIS found 53,965 individuals to have credible fear. These individuals, many of whom were detained during this screening process, will be afforded an opportunity to apply for asylum defensively and establish that they meet the refugee definition. The number of credible fear cases has skyrocketed since the procedure was implemented—in FY 2009, USCIS completed 5,523 cases. Case completions reached an all-time high in FY 2023 at 148,440. In FY 2023, two-thirds of which occurred during Title 42, USCIS found 1,950 individuals to have reasonable fear.
AFFIRMATIVE ASYLUM PROCESS ARRIVE IN THE UNITED STATES To apply for asylum you must be physically present in the United States APPLY To apply for asylum, you should file Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, with USCIS within 1 year of your last arrival in the United States (unless you qualify for an exception to the 1-year filing deadline). biometrics You should read the ASC Appointment Notice and take it with you to your fingerprinting appointment at the ASC. You do not need to pay a fingerprinting fee as an asylum applicant. If you are also requesting asylum status for your spouse and children and they are with you in the United States, they will need to go with you to your ASC appointment. More information is available on the Preparing for Your Biometric Services Appointment page. INTERVIEW NOTICE Depending on where you live, we will schedule you for an interview with an asylum officer at either a USCIS asylum office or a USCIS field office (also called a circuit ride location). For more information about USCIS field and asylum offices, visit our Find A USCIS Office page. Your interview notice will tell you the date, location, and time of your asylum interview. As of Jan. 29, 2018, the USCIS Asylum Division is scheduling asylum interviews in the following order of priority:* 1st priority: Applications that were scheduled for an interview, but the interview had to be rescheduled at the applicant’s request or the needs of USCIS;2nd priority: Applications that have been pending 21 days or less since filing;3rd priority: All other pending affirmative asylum applications will be scheduled for interviews starting with newer filings and working back towards older filings.*This scheduling approach was first established following the asylum reforms of 1995 (PDF, 22.31 KB), and was in place previously for 20 years. See Affirmative Asylum Interview Scheduling for more information. ATTEND INTERVIEW You may bring an attorney or accredited representative to the interview. You must also bring your spouse and any children seeking derivative asylum benefits to the interview. If you cannot proceed with the interview in English you must bring an interpreter. The interview will generally last about 1 hour, although the time may vary depending on the case. You may also bring witnesses to testify on your behalf. For more information about your asylum interview, see our Web page on Preparing for Your Asylum Interview. ASYLUM OFFICE DECIDES You must meet the definition of a refugee in order to be eligible for asylum. The asylum officer will determine whether you: A supervisory asylum officer reviews the asylum officer’s decision to ensure it is consistent with the law. Depending on the case, the supervisory asylum officer may refer the decision to asylum division staff at USCIS headquarters for additional review.If you are also requesting asylum status for your spouse and children and they are with you in the United States, they will need to go with you to your ASC appointment. RECEIVE DECISION In most cases, you will return to the asylum office to pick up the decision 2 weeks after the asylum officer interviewed you.Longer processing times may be required if you: Are currently in valid immigration status; Were interviewed at a USCIS field office; Have pending security checks; or Have a case that is being reviewed by asylum division staff at USCISheadquarters. USCIS will normally mail your decision to you in these situations.
ONE YEAR PHYSICAL PRESENCE REQUIREMENT USCIS announced the policy change last year and I didn’t see it. POLICY UPDATE FOR ASYLEE ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS Asylees do not have to wait a year to file an I-485 because USCIS will now count the year from the date of adjudication of the I-485 not its filing date. REFERENCES USCIS Policy Manual Chapter 2 USCIS Policy Manual Volume 7 Part A 8 CFR 11771 Title 8 Section 1159 REQUIREMENTS TO ADJUST STATUS According to the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7 – Adjustment of Status, Part M – Asylee Adjustment, an asylee may adjust their status to a lawful permanent resident if they meet the following four requirements: ✅ 1 year physical presence in the US after being granted asylum ✅ Continuing to meet the definition of a refugee or being the spouse/child of the principal asylee ✅ Not having firmly resettled in a foreign country ✅ Admissible to the US as an immigrant at the time of adjustment of status examination The first and foremost requirement for Asylees to be eligible for a green card is to have been physically present in the US for at least 1 year after being granted asylum. This requirement is crucial in determining the eligibility of an asylee for a green card. 👉 The recent update from USCIS regarding the requirement for Asylees and Refugees to have a physical presence in the United States for a full year prior to filing for a Green Card has caused some confusion among immigration lawyers. Some interpret this update as a change in policy, allowing Asylees to file for a Green Card after only several months of physical presence in the US, while others believe that the one year requirement still holds. It’s important to note that, according to USCIS policy, an Asylee must have been physically present in the United States for at least one year after being granted asylum in order to be eligible for Adjustment of Status to a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). Despite this, there seems to be some uncertainty surrounding the new USCIS rule and its potential impact on the timeline for Asylees to apply for a Green Card. Until further clarification from USCIS, it remains a point of debate among immigration lawyers. Some believe that Asylees should still wait the full year before filing for a Green Card, while others think that the shortened time frame is acceptable. In either case, it is crucial for Asylees to consult with an experienced immigration lawyer to understand their options and ensure they are following all the necessary steps in their Green Card asylum journey. See Matter of Chawathe (PDF), 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Certain documentation requirements do not apply to asylees adjusting status. See INA 212(a)(7)(A). Matter of Chawathe (1) For purposes of establishing the requisite continuous residence in naturalization proceedings pursuant to section 316(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1427(b) (2006), a publicly held corporation may be deemed an “American firm or corporation” if the applicant establishes that the corporation is both incorporated in the United States and trades its stock exclusively on U.S. stock exchange markets. (2) When an applicant’s employer is a publicly held corporation that is incorporated in the United States and trades its stock exclusively on U.S. stock markets, the applicant need not demonstrate the nationality of the corporation by establishing the nationality of those persons who own more than 51% of the stock of that firm. Matter of Warrach, 17 I&N Dec. 285, 286-87 (Reg. Comm’r 1979), clarified. (3) In most administrative immigration proceedings, the applicant must prove by a preponderance of evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. (4) Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is “more likely than not” or “probably” true, the applicant has satisfied the standard of proof. Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm’r 1989), followed. (5) If the director can articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the director to either request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to believe that the claim is probably not true, deny the application or petition. PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner or applicant in administrative immigration proceedings must prove by a preponderance of evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. See, e.g., Matter of Martinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997) (noting that the petitioner must prove eligibility by a preponderance of evidence in visa petition proceedings); Matter of Soo Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151, 152 (BIA 1965) (finding that the petitioner had not established eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence because the submitted evidence was not credible); cf. Matter of Patel, 19 I&N Dec. 774, 782-3 (BIA 1988) (noting that section 204(a)(2)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(2)(A) (Supp. IV 1986), requires a higher standard of clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of a fraudulent prior marriage). See more info at the BURDEN OF PROOF — PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE page.
A principal refugee admitted to the United States within the past 2 years or a principal asylee who was granted asylum within the past 2 years, may use the Form I-730 to petition for a spouse or child. Petitioning in this context meaning to request that a spouse or an unmarried child under 21 years of age join the principal asylee in the United States. In certain circumstances, unmarried adult sons/daughters over 21 years of age may be eligible for following-to-join immigration benefits if they fall within the protections set forth in the Child Status Protection Act. In some cases, USCIS may grant a waiver of the 2-year filing deadline for humanitarian reasons as explained in the Instructions for Form I-730. Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. made a guide for Form I-730 that you can find here. Just keep in mind that the guide is from 2019 and there have been some changes to policy and procedure since then. Double check the USCIS website to make sure you read the information on the USCIS I-730 information page. Also, a link to the official USCIS instructions is provided below. Form Instructions I-730 FILLABLE I-730 LEARN MORE
What Is Asylum? Asylum is a form of protection granted to foreign nationals already in the United States or arriving at the border. To qualify, they must meet the international law definition of a ‘refugee.’ According to the United Nations 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol, a refugee is someone who cannot or will not return to their home country due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on factors such as race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The U.S. incorporated this definition into its immigration law through the Refugee Act of 1980. Asylum status is technically ‘discretionary,’ meaning that even if an individual meets the refugee definition, they may still be denied asylum. In such cases, an alternative form of protection called ‘withholding of removal’ may be available to safeguard them from harm. The United States, as a signatory to the 1967 Protocol, has legal obligations to protect those who qualify as refugees. The Refugee Act provides two paths to obtain refugee status: either from abroad as a resettled refugee or within the United States as an asylum seeker Affirmative Asylum When a noncitizen applies for asylum before they are in removal proceedings Defensive Asylum When a non-citizen is already in removal proceedings when they apply for asylum. Asylum Processing Rule Since May 31, 2022, certain individuals entering the United States undergo processing based on an interim final rule. Initially, they are placed in expedited removal. If they express fear of persecution or torture, they receive a credible fear interview, which initiates a defensive asylum claim. Instead of directly sending their case to an immigration judge, individuals processed under this rule are referred to an asylum officer for a non-adversarial Asylum Merits Interview within 21-45 days after the credible fear determination. This interview resembles an affirmative asylum claim. The asylum officer can either grant or deny asylum. If denied, the case proceeds to an immigration judge. Additionally, a person denied asylum by an asylum officer is also evaluated for eligibility for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture—a key aspect of defensive asylum procedures. ONE-YEAR FILING DEADLINE An individual generally must apply for asylum within one year of their most recent arrival in the United States. In 2018, a federal district court found that DHS is obligated to notify asylum seekers of this deadline in a class-action lawsuit that challenged the government’s failure to provide asylum seekers adequate notice of the one-year deadline and a uniform procedure for filing timely applications. Asylum seekers in the affirmative and defensive processes face many obstacles to meeting the one-year deadline. Some individuals face traumatic repercussions from their time in detention or journeying to the United States and may never know that a deadline exists. Even those who are aware of the deadline encounter systemic barriers, such as lengthy backlogs, that can make it impossible to file their application in a timely manner. In many cases, missing the one-year deadline is the sole reason the government denies an asylum application. Under the expedited asylum process, a person who passes a credible fear interview is considered to have applied for asylum, which means that the one-year filing deadline is automatically satisfied. PROVING ASYLUM For asylum applicants, INA § 208 (b)(1)(B)(ii) specifies, “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee.” Demeanor and Credibility The INA directs that an IJ in assessing credibility should consider the “totality of the circumstances” and “all relevant factors,” including: the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor. The REAL ID Act states for asylum applicants that a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record. See INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii). INA § 240(c)(4)(C). See also Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 I&N Dec. 260, 266 (BIA 2007) (holding that the IJ properly considered the totality of the circumstances in finding that the applicant lacked credibility based on his demeanor, implausible testimony, lack of corroboration, and inconsistent statements). Respondent Has Burden to Explain Inconsistencies In Matter of Y-I-M-, 28 27 I&N Dec. 724, 725 (BIA 2019), the BIA held that “if inconsistencies in the record are obvious or have previously been identified” by DHS or the IJ, the IJ is not required to give the respondent a specific opportunity to explain them.
During President Trump’s first term the U.S. signed “asylum cooperative agreements” with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (“the Northern Triangle countries”) that allow the U.S. to send asylum seekers to these countries and bar them from applying for protection in the U.S. You can see more about the original implementation of these agreements on the DHS website. The Biden administration suspended these agreements once he took office but then Trump was elected to second term as president and on July 2025, DHS published in the Federal Register the “Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Honduras for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Requests.” The agreement provides for Honduras to process protection requests, such as for asylum or temporary protection, for some “protection applicants” the U.S. Government sends to Honduras after they request protection in the U.S. The agreement does not apply to nationals of Honduras, stateless habitual residents of Honduras, unaccompanied minors, or people who arrived in the U.S. with a valid visa or visa waiver (90 FR 30076, 7/8/25). The full text of the Federal Register is below. The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 291 (BIA 2025) regarding these agreements. The Board’s decision was: (1) If the Department of Homeland Security claims that an asylum cooperative agreement bars a respondent from applying for asylum in the United States, the Immigration Judge should determine whether the safe third country bar applies prior to and separate from considering a respondent’s eligibility for asylum. (2) A respondent subject to the terms of an asylum cooperative agreement has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she will more likely than not be persecuted on account of a protected ground or tortured in the relevant third country to avoid application of the safe third country bar and for the respondent to be eligible to seek asylum and other protection claims in the United States. “Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Honduras for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Requests.”
The requirements for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Article III of the UN Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) compared. Withholding Under the INA & Withholding Under CAT There is actually withholding of removal under INA §241(b)(3) and withholding of removal under CAT. Withholding under INA §241(b)(3) gives the applicant the burden of proving that his/her life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country of removal on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Withholding of removal under CAT does not require there to be a nexus between the harm and a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group). Most people say “withholding of removal” when referring to withholding of removal under INA 241(b)(3) and then combine withholding of removal under CAT and deferral of removal under CAT referring to both of them as “protections under CAT.” That is exactly what I’ve done here, so Primary Distinctions Between Asylum, Withholding, & CAT Withholding of removal is a higher standard than asylum despite granting fewer benefits, but it is not subject to the one-year filing deadline. A noncitizen who fails to establish reasonable possibility of persecution for asylum (a 10% chance can be sufficient) will not be able to establish eligibility for withholding since it is a higher burden of more likely than not (greater than 50% chance). CAT does not require that the persecution be based on a protected ground and requires the same likelihood of harm as withholding of removal, which is more likely than not ( or > 50% chance). However, for CAT the harm must meet the definition of torture. – ASYLUM WITHHOLDING CAT PROTECTION ONE-YEAR FILING DEADLINE Yes No No TYPE OF HARM Persecution Threat to life or freedom Torture LIKELIHOOD OF HARM Reasonable Possibility (A 10% chance can be sufficient) More likely than not (greater than 50% chance of occurrence) More likely than not > 50% chance NEXUS REQUIREMENT Yes–Persecution must be a central reason for the harm. Yes–Harm must be based on the protected ground. No nexus requirement. WHO IS INFLICTINGTHE HARM The Government or a non-government actor the government is unable or unwilling to control. The Government or a non-government actor the government is unable or unwilling to control. The Government or any person acting at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official Discretionary Yes (the Judge can deny as a matter of discretion even if you met the requirements of the statute). No. No. Reinstated removal order Bar to Asylum No bar. No bar. Criminal Bars Aggravated felony, Particularly Serious Crime,Serious nonpolitical crime bar Particularly Serious Crime, Serious nonpolitical crime bar No. This chart lacks details and exceptions that may exist under the law. There are other criminal bars and security bars to all of these forms of relief that are not listed here. Please check the statutes and regulations. Asylum, Withholding of Removal, Convention Against Torture. Footnotes:
Matter of H-C-R-C-, 28 I&N Dec. 809 (BIA 2024) (1) Applicants bear the burden of establishing their own credibility, and no statute or legal precedent compels an Immigration Judge to conclude that an applicant’s testimony is credible. (2) Rape is sufficiently severe to constitute torture and can never be a lawful sanction under the Convention Against Torture.
+ 1 Article
Show More
Sub Categories
Fear interviews are part of the expedited removal process. When a person is put into the expedited removal process, if they express a fear of returning to their home country or request to seek asylum, they are first screened to see if they could establish that they have a fear of persecution or torture. Generally speaking, there are two “levels” of fear interviews, most commonly referred to as “credible fear” and “reasonable fear.” A person is said to have a “credible fear” if they can demonstrate a “significant possibility” that they will be able to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act or withholding of removal or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. A person establishing a “reasonable fear” of persecution or torture has to demonstrate a higher likelihood that they would be eligible for relief from removal. The fear screening process has been periodically altered by new rules issued by various presidential administrations. Those rules are also often the subject of litigation, making the exact process an individual is subjected to (including the standard of proof needed to establish a “credible” fear) subject to regular change. Additionally, many of the rules are applied only to a subset of individuals, often seemingly at random, due to changing logistical, diplomatic, or humanitarian factors. Therefore, the credible and reasonable fear interview process may be applied differently to different people depending on things such as when they arrived at the border, where they arrived, what country they arrived from, whether they entered at a port of entry or between ports of entry, and other considerations. At the credible or reasonable fear interview, if an individual is found by the asylum officer to have met the standard applied to them, they are then referred to proceedings where they can submit an application for asylum or other similar protections. Usually, this is done via a referral to an immigration court, where a person is put in removal proceedings initiated with a Notice to Appear. Some pilot programs such as that created by the Asylum Processing Rule created an alternative venue, where people would have their full asylum cases reviewed by an asylum officer rather than an immigration judge, on a significantly truncated timeline. If the asylum officer determines the person did not establish either credible or reasonable fear, their expedited removal order stays in place. Before removal, the individual may request review of the fear determination by an immigration judge. If the immigration judge overturns a negative fear finding, the individual is treated as if they passed their fear interview and is placed in further removal proceedings through which the individual can seek protection from removal, including asylum. If the immigration judge upholds the negative finding by the asylum officer, the individual will be removed from the United States. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 (a year in which the Title 42 pandemic border expulsion policy was in effect for eight out of 12 months), USCIS found 53,965 individuals to have credible fear. These individuals, many of whom were detained during this screening process, will be afforded an opportunity to apply for asylum defensively and establish that they meet the refugee definition. The number of credible fear cases has skyrocketed since the procedure was implemented—in FY 2009, USCIS completed 5,523 cases. Case completions reached an all-time high in FY 2023 at 148,440. In FY 2023, two-thirds of which occurred during Title 42, USCIS found 1,950 individuals to have reasonable fear.
The requirements for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Article III of the UN Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) compared. Withholding Under the INA & Withholding Under CAT There is actually withholding of removal under INA §241(b)(3) and withholding of removal under CAT. Withholding under INA §241(b)(3) gives the applicant the burden of proving that his/her life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country of removal on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Withholding of removal under CAT does not require there to be a nexus between the harm and a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group). Most people say “withholding of removal” when referring to withholding of removal under INA 241(b)(3) and then combine withholding of removal under CAT and deferral of removal under CAT referring to both of them as “protections under CAT.” That is exactly what I’ve done here, so Primary Distinctions Between Asylum, Withholding, & CAT Withholding of removal is a higher standard than asylum despite granting fewer benefits, but it is not subject to the one-year filing deadline. A noncitizen who fails to establish reasonable possibility of persecution for asylum (a 10% chance can be sufficient) will not be able to establish eligibility for withholding since it is a higher burden of more likely than not (greater than 50% chance). CAT does not require that the persecution be based on a protected ground and requires the same likelihood of harm as withholding of removal, which is more likely than not ( or > 50% chance). However, for CAT the harm must meet the definition of torture. – ASYLUM WITHHOLDING CAT PROTECTION ONE-YEAR FILING DEADLINE Yes No No TYPE OF HARM Persecution Threat to life or freedom Torture LIKELIHOOD OF HARM Reasonable Possibility (A 10% chance can be sufficient) More likely than not (greater than 50% chance of occurrence) More likely than not > 50% chance NEXUS REQUIREMENT Yes–Persecution must be a central reason for the harm. Yes–Harm must be based on the protected ground. No nexus requirement. WHO IS INFLICTINGTHE HARM The Government or a non-government actor the government is unable or unwilling to control. The Government or a non-government actor the government is unable or unwilling to control. The Government or any person acting at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official Discretionary Yes (the Judge can deny as a matter of discretion even if you met the requirements of the statute). No. No. Reinstated removal order Bar to Asylum No bar. No bar. Criminal Bars Aggravated felony, Particularly Serious Crime,Serious nonpolitical crime bar Particularly Serious Crime, Serious nonpolitical crime bar No. This chart lacks details and exceptions that may exist under the law. There are other criminal bars and security bars to all of these forms of relief that are not listed here. Please check the statutes and regulations. Asylum, Withholding of Removal, Convention Against Torture. Footnotes:
Matter of H-C-R-C-, 28 I&N Dec. 809 (BIA 2024) (1) Applicants bear the burden of establishing their own credibility, and no statute or legal precedent compels an Immigration Judge to conclude that an applicant’s testimony is credible. (2) Rape is sufficiently severe to constitute torture and can never be a lawful sanction under the Convention Against Torture.
The requirements for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Article III of the UN Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) compared. Withholding Under the INA & Withholding Under CAT There is actually withholding of removal under INA §241(b)(3) and withholding of removal under CAT. Withholding under INA §241(b)(3) gives the applicant the burden of proving that his/her life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country of removal on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Withholding of removal under CAT does not require there to be a nexus between the harm and a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group). Most people say “withholding of removal” when referring to withholding of removal under INA 241(b)(3) and then combine withholding of removal under CAT and deferral of removal under CAT referring to both of them as “protections under CAT.” That is exactly what I’ve done here, so Primary Distinctions Between Asylum, Withholding, & CAT Withholding of removal is a higher standard than asylum despite granting fewer benefits, but it is not subject to the one-year filing deadline. A noncitizen who fails to establish reasonable possibility of persecution for asylum (a 10% chance can be sufficient) will not be able to establish eligibility for withholding since it is a higher burden of more likely than not (greater than 50% chance). CAT does not require that the persecution be based on a protected ground and requires the same likelihood of harm as withholding of removal, which is more likely than not ( or > 50% chance). However, for CAT the harm must meet the definition of torture. – ASYLUM WITHHOLDING CAT PROTECTION ONE-YEAR FILING DEADLINE Yes No No TYPE OF HARM Persecution Threat to life or freedom Torture LIKELIHOOD OF HARM Reasonable Possibility (A 10% chance can be sufficient) More likely than not (greater than 50% chance of occurrence) More likely than not > 50% chance NEXUS REQUIREMENT Yes–Persecution must be a central reason for the harm. Yes–Harm must be based on the protected ground. No nexus requirement. WHO IS INFLICTINGTHE HARM The Government or a non-government actor the government is unable or unwilling to control. The Government or a non-government actor the government is unable or unwilling to control. The Government or any person acting at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official Discretionary Yes (the Judge can deny as a matter of discretion even if you met the requirements of the statute). No. No. Reinstated removal order Bar to Asylum No bar. No bar. Criminal Bars Aggravated felony, Particularly Serious Crime,Serious nonpolitical crime bar Particularly Serious Crime, Serious nonpolitical crime bar No. This chart lacks details and exceptions that may exist under the law. There are other criminal bars and security bars to all of these forms of relief that are not listed here. Please check the statutes and regulations. Asylum, Withholding of Removal, Convention Against Torture. Footnotes: