Thursday, November 4, 2010
"Let the UN Criticize Us"
From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/opinion/03iht-edpickering.html?_r=1
US Invites the World's Questions
Here is an article about the UPR process http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110304471.html
How do the elections affect human rights?
I've heard this question asked many times here in Geneva, and the answer depends on who you ask. People working to improve labor rights are going to give you a very different answer from those who advocate for stronger protections for child soldiers, for example.
Here's my response:
It doesn't make much difference at all. Human rights transcend partisanship. It takes broad bi-partisan support to ratify a human rights treaty: 67 senators have to vote yea. And there is bi-partisan support for human rights. Maybe not 2/3 of the Senate... but still.
And anyway, most of Human Rights USA's work is in the courts. So the changing makeup of the Congress has little direct impact on the cases we are litigating.
Here's my response:
It doesn't make much difference at all. Human rights transcend partisanship. It takes broad bi-partisan support to ratify a human rights treaty: 67 senators have to vote yea. And there is bi-partisan support for human rights. Maybe not 2/3 of the Senate... but still.
And anyway, most of Human Rights USA's work is in the courts. So the changing makeup of the Congress has little direct impact on the cases we are litigating.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
World Watching the US - Elections and the UPR
The top story on the TV news here in Geneva is the U.S. election results. So maybe it shouldn't surprise us that there has been a strong response to the educational sessions that American advocacy groups have organized at the UN this week. On Tuesday, the Center for Reproductive Rights hosted a panel called "Heightened Obstacles, Heightened Obligations: Access to Sexual and Reproductive Health Care for Marginalized Populations in the U.S." Presenters included Cynthia Soohoo of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Cristina Finch from Amnesty International USA, RJ Thompson of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, and Renee Chelian of Northland Family Planning. These speakers talked about the significant and unnecessary challenges to accessing health care that are a reality for many people because of their race, gender, income, geography, and other factors, and made recommendations on steps the U.S. government should take to address these concerns - and save lives.
The next event highlighted the human rights dimensions of the housing crisis in the U.S. Eric Tars from the National Law Center for Homelessness and Poverty outlined specific problems where implementing internationally recognized human rights principles would improve access to shelter. Tyler Chase screened a new documentary about forced evictions in the U.S., documenting first hand how devastating that is.
You can watch these events and others on the US Human Rights Network's YouTube channel.
More UN members are posting their advance questions for the UPR. You can read them here.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
US Human Rights Take Center Stage at UN This Week
Greetings from Geneva! I’m here because United Nations Human Rights Council is going to hold a hearing on the United States’ human rights record on Friday, November 5. This process is called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
Universal = every member of the UN goes through this process
Periodic = every four years
Review = the UN considers the government’s compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter, which together cover the full range of international human rights, and makes recommendations for improvements.
I’m here in person because the UPR is a chance to educate other countries on the human rights situation in the US, so that this isn’t just about politics, but about real people who are falling through the gaps in the protections available in the US and in our global policies. Also, being part of the process can help improve it.
There are critical human rights issues to discuss. The U.S. has not ratified several key treaties that the rest of the world considers no-brainers: the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), just to name the most obvious ones. Even the treaties we have adopted haven’t been fully incorporated into U.S. laws. That makes Human Rights USA’s work a lot harder. When survivors of human rights abuses ask us to represent them in court, we often have to tell them those rights are just on paper -- there isn’t a way to assert their rights under the treaties in a U.S. court.
Lots of other advocates from the U.S. are here too -- many (like me) with coordination and support from the US Human Rights Network. We have organized a series of educational events on all kinds of issues: discrimination, migrant workers, housing rights, political repression, corporate accountability, labor rights… some of them are blogging too, like Eric Tars from the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, whose video blogs you can watch here. As I have more links, I’ll share them.
Universal = every member of the UN goes through this process
Periodic = every four years
Review = the UN considers the government’s compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter, which together cover the full range of international human rights, and makes recommendations for improvements.
I’m here in person because the UPR is a chance to educate other countries on the human rights situation in the US, so that this isn’t just about politics, but about real people who are falling through the gaps in the protections available in the US and in our global policies. Also, being part of the process can help improve it.
There are critical human rights issues to discuss. The U.S. has not ratified several key treaties that the rest of the world considers no-brainers: the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), just to name the most obvious ones. Even the treaties we have adopted haven’t been fully incorporated into U.S. laws. That makes Human Rights USA’s work a lot harder. When survivors of human rights abuses ask us to represent them in court, we often have to tell them those rights are just on paper -- there isn’t a way to assert their rights under the treaties in a U.S. court.
Lots of other advocates from the U.S. are here too -- many (like me) with coordination and support from the US Human Rights Network. We have organized a series of educational events on all kinds of issues: discrimination, migrant workers, housing rights, political repression, corporate accountability, labor rights… some of them are blogging too, like Eric Tars from the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, whose video blogs you can watch here. As I have more links, I’ll share them.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Asylum Secured!
Thanks to all of your support Human Rights USA has helped another woman secure asylum from gender-related persecution! Recently, Rovena* was granted asylum based on violence and sexual assault she suffered because of her husband's democratic activism and her career as an English teacher in rural Albania. After fleeing to the US with their young son, Rovena and her husband applied for asylum, initially using her husband's political asylum claim to protect the entire family. When his case was denied, Rovena contacted Human Rights USA's attorneys about using her own experiences as an asylum case. Human Rights USA referred the case to attorney Miriam Marton of Skadden LLP in New York, and assisted with bringing on expert witnesses and developing innovative strategy. Thanks to this pro bono partnership, Rovena was able to secure asylum.
Human Rights USA Program Director Lynsay Gott provided pro bono mentoring to Ms. Marton as she represented Rovena in her petition. We sat down with Lynsay to ask her a few questions:
Q. What sets this case apart?
LG: Well, it was kind of two cases in one. Rovena had a valid asylum claim that was never presented, but in order to present it she had to get back before an Immigration Judge (IJ), despite being attached as a derivative to her husband's case. It's not always easy to convince the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to send a case back to the IJ, but the fact is, Rovena was traumatized, unfamiliar with U.S. law, and understandably reliant on her family's immigration attorney during the first go-round. When Rovena testified at the original hearing, neither the attorney nor the judge questioned her about her own experiences. But now, with the remand followed by the grant of asylum, the immigration courts not only recognized that sexual violence can be persecution, they have recognized that asylum seekers have a due process right to present claims on their own behalf.
Q. What were the crucial moves towards securing Rovena's asylum?
LG: Finding a good pro bono attorney was certainly the first step! Miriam went above and beyond on this case. As I said, this was a two part case, and that meant convincing the BIA that Rovena had a right to a hearing of her own, and then convincing the IJ that she was eligible for asylum. Miriam put together excellent arguments on both counts. Well researched, cogent arguments are always crucial in tough asylum cases. Another crucial step in every case is to find a good expert witness. Winning this case required convincing the judge that Rovena's persecution truly could have occurred on account of her political opinion or social group membership, and that she was still likely to face harm if returned to Albania. Sexual assault and other violence against women occur all over the world and it can be difficult to convince a court that a specific woman's experience, or potential future experiences, would fit the requirements of asylum eligibility. We found expert witnesses who could testify extensively to the kind of harmful treatment a woman like Rovena could face in Albania, why that harm occurs, and how it fits the framework of asylum eligibility.
Q. What does this decision mean for Rovena and her family?
LG: Rovena now has asylum status, which will allow her to live and work lawfully in the United States without the constant fear of being returned to Albania, where her family's persecutors could find her again. Her husband and son, whose case was denied by the BIA, may be able to get their case reopened, and receive derivative asylum status as family members.
Q. What does this decision mean for future asylum seekers?
LG: While neither of the decisions (BIA or Immigration Judge) were precedent-setting, they do prove that asylum seekers can successfully fight for their due process rights. When Rovena's husband first filed his asylum claim and added her as a derivative, his original attorney should have tried to find out whether Rovena had been directly persecuted as well. But more importantly, the Immigration Judge in the first hearing also had a duty to establish whether the derivative applicants might have had claims of their own before denying the entire case. Rovena has a statutory right to present her own claims and evidence, and with the help of her pro bono attorney, she was able to get the immigration courts to respect that right.
*Rovena is a pseudonym
Human Rights USA Program Director Lynsay Gott provided pro bono mentoring to Ms. Marton as she represented Rovena in her petition. We sat down with Lynsay to ask her a few questions:
Q. What sets this case apart?
LG: Well, it was kind of two cases in one. Rovena had a valid asylum claim that was never presented, but in order to present it she had to get back before an Immigration Judge (IJ), despite being attached as a derivative to her husband's case. It's not always easy to convince the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to send a case back to the IJ, but the fact is, Rovena was traumatized, unfamiliar with U.S. law, and understandably reliant on her family's immigration attorney during the first go-round. When Rovena testified at the original hearing, neither the attorney nor the judge questioned her about her own experiences. But now, with the remand followed by the grant of asylum, the immigration courts not only recognized that sexual violence can be persecution, they have recognized that asylum seekers have a due process right to present claims on their own behalf.
Q. What were the crucial moves towards securing Rovena's asylum?
LG: Finding a good pro bono attorney was certainly the first step! Miriam went above and beyond on this case. As I said, this was a two part case, and that meant convincing the BIA that Rovena had a right to a hearing of her own, and then convincing the IJ that she was eligible for asylum. Miriam put together excellent arguments on both counts. Well researched, cogent arguments are always crucial in tough asylum cases. Another crucial step in every case is to find a good expert witness. Winning this case required convincing the judge that Rovena's persecution truly could have occurred on account of her political opinion or social group membership, and that she was still likely to face harm if returned to Albania. Sexual assault and other violence against women occur all over the world and it can be difficult to convince a court that a specific woman's experience, or potential future experiences, would fit the requirements of asylum eligibility. We found expert witnesses who could testify extensively to the kind of harmful treatment a woman like Rovena could face in Albania, why that harm occurs, and how it fits the framework of asylum eligibility.
Q. What does this decision mean for Rovena and her family?
LG: Rovena now has asylum status, which will allow her to live and work lawfully in the United States without the constant fear of being returned to Albania, where her family's persecutors could find her again. Her husband and son, whose case was denied by the BIA, may be able to get their case reopened, and receive derivative asylum status as family members.
Q. What does this decision mean for future asylum seekers?
LG: While neither of the decisions (BIA or Immigration Judge) were precedent-setting, they do prove that asylum seekers can successfully fight for their due process rights. When Rovena's husband first filed his asylum claim and added her as a derivative, his original attorney should have tried to find out whether Rovena had been directly persecuted as well. But more importantly, the Immigration Judge in the first hearing also had a duty to establish whether the derivative applicants might have had claims of their own before denying the entire case. Rovena has a statutory right to present her own claims and evidence, and with the help of her pro bono attorney, she was able to get the immigration courts to respect that right.
*Rovena is a pseudonym
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
