PROPOSED REFUGEE ADMISSIONS

FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2014

REPORT TO THE CONGRESS

SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TO THE

COMMITTEES ON THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATE

AND

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

IN FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF

SECTIONS 207(d)(1) and (e)

OF THE

IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

 
i

INTRODUCTION

This Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2014: Report to the 

Congress is submitted in compliance with Sections 207(d)(1) and (e) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Act requires that before the start of 

the fiscal year and, to the extent possible, at least two weeks prior to consultations 

on refugee admissions, members of the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives be provided with the following information:

(1) A description of the nature of the refugee situation;

(2) A description of the number and allocation of the refugees to be admitted

and an analysis of conditions within the countries from which they came;

(3) A description of the plans for their movement and resettlement and the 

estimated cost of their movement and resettlement;

(4) An analysis of the anticipated social, economic, and demographic impact 

of their admission to the United States; 1

(5) A description of the extent to which other countries will admit and assist in 

the resettlement of such refugees;

(6) An analysis of the impact of the participation of the United States in the 

resettlement of such refugees on the foreign policy interests of the United 

States; and

(7) Such additional information as may be appropriate or requested by such 

members.

In addition, this report contains information as required by Section 602(d) of 

the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-292, October 

27, 1998, 112 Stat. 2787) (IRFA) about religious persecution of refugee 

populations eligible for consideration for admission to the United States. This 

report meets the reporting requirements of Section 305(b) of the North Korean 

Human Rights Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-333, October 18, 2004, 118 Stat. 

1287) by providing information about specific measures taken to facilitate access 

to the United States refugee program for individuals who have fled “countries of 

particular concern” for violations of religious freedoms, identified pursuant to 

Section 402(b) of the IRFA.

 

i Detailed discussion of the anticipated social and economic impact, including secondary migration, of the

admission of refugees to the United States is being provided in the Report to the Congress of the Refugee

Resettlement Program, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Department of Health and Human Services.
ii

FOREWORD

The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) is a critical 

component of the United States’ overall protection efforts around the globe. 

On the occasion of World Refugee Day on June 20, both President Obama 

and Secretary Kerry re-affirmed the U.S. commitment to helping refugees 

and the importance of providing safe haven in America. While starting life 

anew in the United States presents considerable challenges, it also creates 

unparalleled hope and provides opportunity for a new beginning for tens of 

thousands of persons each year. The support and assistance that average 

Americans provide to these newcomers greatly helps them integrate into our 

country. Refugees add to America’s vitality and diversity by making 

substantial contributions to our economic and cultural life. 

Resettlement in a third country is a durable solution for refugees who are 

among the most vulnerable in the world and for whom the other two durable 

solutions -- repatriation or local integration in the country of refuge -- are not 

viable options. Traditionally, the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) 

offers resettlement to refugees regardless of their location, national origin, health 

status, occupational skills, or level of educational attainment. 

Maximizing U.S. Arrivals

Refugee arrivals in FY 2013 are up sharply from the previous two years 

thanks to the concerted efforts of the many partners involved in U.S. resettlement. 

Arrivals are on-pace to exceed FY 2012 arrivals by more than 10,000 individuals, 

and will come very near to reaching the President’s authorized ceiling of 70,000. 

This success was made possible in part by better synchronization of security and 

medical checks for refugee families as well as investments in UNHCR’s ability to 

refer refugees from the Middle East and Africa. The United States will welcome a 

record number of Iraqi refugees in 2013, thanks to staffing increases for Iraq 

operations and efficiencies in security checks. As of August 2013 the United 

States has resettled more than 88,000 Iraqis since 2007, even despite a difficult 

operating environment in some host countries. Arrivals from Africa are also strong 

and are on-pace to exceed our regional projection of 12,000 refugees. Processing 

improvements in Havana have led to strong Cuban refugee arrivals, with more than 

4,000 expected by the end of FY 2013. 
iii

Helping the Hard-to-Reach and the Especially Vulnerable

The Administration has worked closely with Congress to invest the 

resources necessary to reach the most desperate 

groups of refugees. These individuals may be 

small in number, yet they are hard to resettle 

because they are located in less accessible places. 

In FY 2013 the program will admit refugees of 

some 65 nationalities from sites around the world. 

We have interviewed and processed the cases of 

refugees from the Libyan-Egyptian border, the 

Dadaab camp in Kenya, transit centers in Europe, 

urban areas in Latin America, and remote camps 

along the Thai-Burma border, among other 

locations. Through resettlement efforts targeting 

the most vulnerable refugees – even in hard to 

reach places – the United States ensures that the 

USRAP is consistent with humanitarian principles.

During the past year, the USRAP continued 

to help many of the world’s most vulnerable 

refugees, who have lived in protracted situations 

for years, uncertain about their fate and unable to 

develop their potential. These include survivors of 

torture or gender-based violence, and lesbian, gay, 

bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) individuals. 

Reuniting Families

Early this past year the United States 

reinstated the Priority Three (P-3) family 

reunification program following a four-year suspension due to high levels of fraud 

uncovered via DNA testing. The revised program includes new anti-fraud 

measures, including the requirement of DNA evidence to verify certain biological 

relationships. These measures will mitigate attempted fraud and enable bona fide 

refugees to join existing family members in the United States. 

Improvements to Global Resettlement

Efforts to expand the number of nations involved in the resettlement of 

refugees continue to pay dividends. In recent years, countries without a history of 

resettling refugees have stepped forward and established programs. Recent

“On World Refugee Day, the United 

States stands with the more than 45 

million people around the world who 

have been forced to flee their homes due 

to conflict and political violence.

This year, I want especially to thank 

countries and communities working to 

meet the needs of those who have fled the 

ongoing violence in Syria. In word and 

deed, countries like Lebanon, Jordan, 

Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt have taken on 

extraordinary burdens as they host people 

displaced by horrific violence. We are 

grateful for their generosity, and pleased 

to support their efforts in addressing this 

humanitarian crisis.

Today, we reaffirm our commitment to 

working with the Office of the UN High 

Commissioner for Refugees and our 

partners and Allies to protect and assist 

all those displaced as they work to 

rebuild their lives in peace and dignity.”

President Barack Obama

June 20, 2013

World Refugee Day
iv

additions include France, Germany, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, the Czech Republic, 

and Romania. In 2012, 27 countries resettled refugees identified and referred by 

UNHCR.

For several years the U.S. Government has provided financial support to 

countries in Latin America to enhance their efforts 

to initiate and build resettlement programs. These

efforts focus largely on the resettlement of 

Colombian refugees in countries that have not 

traditionally resettled refugees. The Department of 

State has also mentored the governments of Uruguay 

and Bulgaria in order to improve or launch their own 

resettlement efforts.

Enhancing America’s Security while Welcoming 

Bona Fide Refugees

In the last several years, the USRAP 

incorporated additional security enhancements to 

safeguard the resettlement program from fraud and 

national security risks. The Administration also 

continued to work over the past year to address the 

effects of the broad definitions of “terrorist activity” 

and “terrorist organization” under U.S. immigration 

law on refugees and other immigrants whose 

admission to or presence in the United States does 

not compromise our national security and is 

consistent with U.S. foreign policy interests.

Over the course of the past year, US 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has

continued to implement several group-based and 

situational exemptions authorized by Department of 

Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano. As of 

July 2013, USCIS has granted more than 400 

exemptions from terrorism-related inadmissibility 

grounds for refugee applicants in FY 2013, after 

examining each on a case-by-case basis to determine 

that their admission would not compromise our 

national security.

“Today is just the 12th official World 

Refugee Day, but I’m proud to say that in 

United States of America, our country 

has had a tradition of welcoming the 

“huddled masses yearning to breathe 

free,” and it runs deep in our roots. I 

think it’s safe to say it’s part of our DNA 

as Americans, and we’re proud of that.

Roughly 150 years before the American 

Revolution took place and 400 years 

before the Statue of Liberty first stood up 

in New York Harbor to welcome people, 

a fellow by the name of John Winthrop 

came to this land as a Puritan refugee 

from England with a group of refugees 

on a sail vessel, the Arbella.

And he crossed the Atlantic. Before he 

arrived in Boston Harbor, he delivered a 

very well-known sermon, envisioning the 

colony they were going to create there as 

this “City Upon a Hill,” words that have 

been well quoted now by President 

Kennedy initially and President Reagan 

subsequently. He challenged the 

congregation that came over with him to 

serve as a model of justice and tolerance 

because, as he said, “the eyes of all 

people are upon us.”

Well, I would say to you today that they 

still are. The eyes of all people are upon 

us. And opening our docks and our doors 

to refugees has been part of the great 

tradition of our country. It defines us. It 

really is who we are. Most people came 

to this country at one point or another 

from another place.”

Secretary John Kerry

June 20, 2013

World Refugee Day
v

Ensuring a Suitable Welcome

In FY 2010 the Department of State increased the per capita Reception and 

Placement grant from $900 to $1,800. This grant helps cover initial services after 

a refugee’s arrival in the United States. This step recognized that the grant amount 

was insufficient and had not kept pace with inflation, the cost of living and the 

rising costs of resettlement. The doubling of this grant was undertaken with the 

approval of and support from Congress. In FY 2013 the per capita grant increased 

again to $1,875 in line with realistic estimates of needs.

In FY 2013, the Department of State maintained a policy that provides 

resettlement agencies a guaranteed minimum amount of funding so that they can 

provide quality reception and placement services to arriving refugees even if a 

lower than expected number of refugees are admitted or if there are unavoidable 

delays in arrivals. The Department expects to continue this funding mechanism in 

FY 2014.

In addition to the Reception and Placement grant provided by the State 

Department, the Office of Refugee Resettlement at the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS/ORR) funds time-limited assistance programs (up to eight 

months from arrival) and social service programs (up to five years) that provide 

benefits and services to refugees. These programs assist refugees in finding

employment in order to become economically self-sufficient and with social 

integration. Recently, HHS/ORR has worked to support intensive case 

management to ensure that refugees have the best opportunities for success by 

ensuring supportive longer-term relationships and developing self-sufficiency 

plans based on refugees’ individual strengths.

The State Department and HHS/ORR continue to work closely with 

receiving communities to ensure stakeholders have the tools and information to 

ensure the best possible welcome and support for newly arrived refugees. Over the 

past year consultations took place in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, 

Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C. Moreover, ORR has recently 

announced the establishment of regional offices in order to increase engagement 

and consultation with resettlement stakeholders. The Administration will continue 

to explore ways of sustaining a strong federal-state-community partnership and 

ensuring that refugees are able to integrate successfully in the United States.
vi

Resettlement as a Key Part of an Overall Approach

Overseas, the U.S. Government continues to use resettlement as one part of 

an overall approach that aims to demonstrate U.S. commitment and leadership and 

promote more generous policies among (a) countries of origin, (b) refugee hosting 

countries and (c) other resettlement countries.

UNHCR has identified seven priority situations where it believes thirdcountry resettlement to be the key to unlocking other measures to help refugees 

stuck in protracted situations. The USRAP has resettled considerable numbers of 

these refugees, particularly Iraqis living in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon; Iraqis and 

Iranians in Turkey; Afghans in Iran; Somalis in Kenya; and Colombians in 

Ecuador. The United States is now chairing a group of countries that will 

participate in UNHCR’s latest priority situation, the resettlement of 50,000 

Congolese from Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and Tanzania. In addition, the U.S.

continues to build the capacity of new resettlement countries, thereby creating

more resettlement slots for vulnerable refugees. 

Planning for the Future

Large-scale processing of Congolese refugees by the United States will 

ensue in FY 2014, as UNHCR and the international resettlement community gear 

up to resettle 50,000 Congolese in coming years. Small-scale resettlement of 

Darfuri refugees in Chad, another group in a protracted situation, should recommence in FY 2014. UNHCR has begun a discussion with the United States 

and other governments on resettling particularly vulnerable Syrian refugees, such 

as victims of gender-based violence and/or torture and some medical cases, likely 

to begin in FY 2014. Programs for Burmese refugees in Thailand and Bhutanese 

refugees in Nepal will begin to wind down in the next few years, as the groups 

eligible for these programs have largely availed themselves of resettlement 

opportunities to the United States or another country. Refugee resettlement will 

continue to be an essential component of the U.S. Government’s response to 

refugee protection needs for years to come and will continue to adapt to meet 

changing refugee needs. 
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction i

Foreword ii

I. OVERVIEW OF U.S. REFUGEE POLICY 1

II. REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM FOR FY 2014 5

Proposed Ceilings 5

Unallocated Reserve 6

Admissions Procedures 6

Eligibility Criteria 6

Priority 1: Individual Referrals 7

Priority 2: Group Referrals 8

FY 2014 Priority 2 Designations 9

Priority 3: Family Reunification Cases 11

FY 2014 Priority 3 Nationalities 13

Visas 93: Family Reunification Following to Join 13

DHS/USCIS Refugee Adjudications 14

The Eligibility Determination 14

Background Checks 15

Processing Activities of the Department of State 16

Overseas Processing Services 16

Cultural Orientation 16

Transportation 17

Reception and Placement (R&P) 17

Office of Refugee Resettlement 18

III. REGIONAL PROGRAMS 21

Africa 22

Religious Freedom 23

Voluntary Repatriation 24

Local Integration 26

Third-Country Resettlement 27

FY 2013 U.S. Admissions 28

FY 2014 U.S. Resettlement Program 28
viii

East Asia 29

Religious Freedom 31

Voluntary Repatriation 33

Local Integration 33

Third-Country Resettlement 33

FY 2013 U.S. Admissions 34

FY 2014 U.S. Resettlement Program 34

Europe and Central Asia 34

Religious Freedom 36

Voluntary Repatriation 37

Local Integration 38

Third-Country Resettlement 38

FY 2013 U.S. Admissions 38

FY 2014 U.S. Resettlement Program 39

Latin America and the Caribbean 39

Religious Freedom 40

Voluntary Repatriation 41

Local Integration 41

Third and In-Country Resettlement 42

FY 2013 U.S. Admissions 43

FY 2014 U.S. Resettlement Program 44

Near East and South Asia 44

Religious Freedom 46

Voluntary Repatriation 48

Local Integration 49

Third-Country Resettlement 52

FY 2013 U.S. Admissions 53

FY 2014 U.S. Resettlement Program 54

IV. DOMESTIC IMPACT OF REFUGEE ADMISSIONS 55
ix

LIST OF TABLES

Page

I. Refugee Admissions in FY 2012 and FY 2013, 5

Proposed Refugee Admissions by Region for FY 2014

II. Proposed FY 2014 Regional Ceilings by Priority 21

III. Refugee Arrivals by Country of Origin, FY 2012 56

IV. Median Age and Gender of Refugee Arrivals, FY 2012 58

V. Select Age Categories of Refugee Arrivals, FY 2012 59

VI. Refugee Arrivals by State of Initial Resettlement, FY 2012 60

VII. Estimated Funding of Refugee Processing, Movement, and 

Resettlement FY 2013 and FY 2014 62

VIII. UNHCR Resettlement Statistics by Resettlement Country, 

CY 2012 63
1

I. OVERVIEW OF U.S. REFUGEE POLICY 

At the end of 2012, the estimated refugee population worldwide stood at 

15.4 million, with 10.5 million receiving protection or assistance from the United 

Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The United States actively 

supports efforts to provide protection, assistance, and durable solutions to these 

refugees, as these measures fulfill our humanitarian interests and further our 

foreign policy and national security interests. Under the authority of the Migration 

and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, as amended, the United States contributes to 

the programs of UNHCR, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), 

the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations Relief and 

Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and other 

international and non-governmental organizations that provide protection and 

assistance to refugees, internally displaced persons (IDPs), victims of conflict, 

stateless persons, and other vulnerable migrants. These contributions are used to 

address the legal and physical protection needs of refugees and to furnish basic 

assistance such as water, sanitation, food, health care, shelter, education, and other 

services. The United States monitors these programs to ensure the most effective 

use of resources, maximizing humanitarian impact for the beneficiaries. 

The United States and UNHCR recognize that most refugees desire safe, 

voluntary return to their homeland as their preferred solution. During FY 2013, the 

United States continued to support voluntary repatriation programs around the 

world. Refugee repatriation operations brought refugees home to Afghanistan, 

Burundi, Cote d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Sri Lanka. 

These operations were carried out to protect returning refugees as well as to help 

them contribute to the stabilization, reconstruction, and development of their home 

countries.

Where opportunities for return remain elusive, the United States and partners 

pursue self-sufficiency and temporary, indefinite, or permanent local integration in 

countries of asylum. The Department of State encourages host governments to 

protect refugees and allow them to integrate into local communities. The State 

Department further promotes local integration by funding programs to enhance 

refugee self-sufficiency and support community-based social services. Groups that 

may avail themselves of opportunities for local integration include Afghans in 

India, Angolans in Zambia, Burundians in Tanzania, Eritreans in Sudan, Liberians 

and Sierra Leoneans in seven countries across West Africa, and Colombians in 

Ecuador, Costa Rica, Panama and Venezuela.
2

UNHCR estimates that there are 12 million people worldwide who are not 

recognized nationals of any state and are, therefore, legally or de facto stateless. 

Without recognized citizenship in any country, many stateless persons exist in 

refugee-like situations, unable to claim rights and denied even the most basic 

protections of law. The United States has supported UNHCR’s efforts to prevent 

and reduce statelessness, including addressing gaps in citizenship laws, eliminating 

provisions that discriminate against women, and promoting fair application of 

those laws. U.S. contributions to UNHCR’s core budget support efforts to prevent 

and address statelessness in Burma, the Dominican Republic, Kuwait, Nepal, 

Sudan, Turkmenistan, and elsewhere. 

In addition, the Department of State seeks to use the U.S. Refugee 

Admissions Program (USRAP) to demonstrate U.S. leadership while encouraging 

other countries to do more to help stateless people and refugees stuck in protracted 

situations. This approach is reflected in the current resettlement of Rohingya 

refugees, as well as in past resettlement of Meskhetian Turks. The Bureau of 

Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) also uses diplomacy to mobilize other 

governments to prevent and resolve situations of statelessness. For example, over 

the past year PRM has conducted field missions and monitored the situations 

confronting stateless people in Burma, Kuwait, and Nepal. Diplomatic efforts 

include U.S. sponsorship of the July 2012 UN Human Rights Council resolution on 

the rights to a nationality for women and children, as part of the Department’s

efforts to combat discrimination against women in nationality laws. 

The United States and UNHCR recognize that resettlement in third 

countries is a vital tool for providing refugees protection and/or durable 

solutions in some particularly difficult cases. For some refugees, resettlement 

is the best, and perhaps the only, alternative. Stateless refugees who arrive in 

the United States for resettlement not only find a durable solution to their 

displacement, but are also placed on a path that will afford the opportunity to 

naturalize and resolve their stateless status.

For more than a decade, the U.S. Government has provided financial support 

to expand and improve UNHCR’s resettlement capacity, principally through 

staffing complements and facility construction. As a result, UNHCR has 

substantially increased referrals to the United States and other resettlement 

countries. We plan to continue to work with UNHCR and consult with host 

governments on group referrals. We will continue to assess resettlement needs and 

allow qualified NGOs to refer refugee applicants to the program.
3

The United States has also supported UNHCR’s efforts to expand the 

number of countries active in resettlement. In 2012, UNHCR referred refugees to 

27 countries for resettlement consideration. Over 90 percent were referred to the 

United States, Australia, and Canada. Smaller numbers of referrals were made to 

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 

Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, 

Portugal, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, and 

the United Kingdom. 

While the overall number of refugees referred by UNHCR and the 

percentage resettled by various countries fluctuate from year to year, the United 

States aims to ensure at least 50 percent of all refugees referred by UNHCR 

worldwide are considered for resettlement in the United States, depending on the 

availability of funds. Some 76 percent of UNHCR-referred refugees who were 

resettled in 2012, were resettled in the United States (see Table VIII).

The foreign policy and humanitarian interests of the United States are often 

advanced by addressing refugee issues in first asylum and resettlement countries. 

In some cases, the United States has been able to use its leadership position in 

resettlement to promote and secure other durable solutions for refugees, or advance 

other human rights or foreign policy objectives. The United States is by far the 

largest single donor to UNHCR, providing over $775 million in FY 2012. During 

the past few years, U.S. resettlement efforts in Africa, the Middle East, and East 

Asia have helped energize efforts by UNHCR and other countries to ensure that 

first asylum is maintained for larger refugee populations or that local integration or 

third country resettlement are options offered to those in need. In certain locations, 

the prompt resettlement of politically sensitive cases has helped defuse regional 

tensions. In the case of refugees fleeing fighting in Libya, the U.S. was willing to 

resettle third-country national refugees who had fled to Tunisia and Egypt. The 

U.S. decision to assist ensured that the process proceeded apace and did not 

negatively affect the receiving countries’ abilities to manage their own democratic 

transitions

During its history, the USRAP has responded to changing circumstances. 

Even before the events of September 11, 2001, the end of the Cold War 

dramatically altered the context in which the USRAP operated. The program 

shifted its focus away from large groups concentrated in a few locations (primarily 

refugees from Vietnam, the former Soviet Union, and the former Yugoslavia) and 

began to admit refugees representing over 50 nationalities per year. Interviews of 

refugees by American officials from the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are often conducted in remote 

locations and are geared toward populations in greatest need of third country 

resettlement opportunities.
4

While maintaining the United States’ leadership role in humanitarian 

protection, an integral part of this mission is to ensure that refugee resettlement 

opportunities go to those who are eligible for such protection and do not present a 

risk to the safety and security of our country. Accordingly, the USRAP is

committed to deterring and detecting fraud among those seeking to resettle in the 

United States and continues to employ the most rigorous security measures 

possible to protect against risks to our national security.

Refugees resettled in the United States enrich our nation. The USRAP is 

premised on the idea that refugees should become economically self-sufficient as 

quickly as possible. The Department of State works domestically with agencies 

participating in the Reception and Placement (R&P) program to ensure that 

refugees receive services in the first thirty to ninety days after arrival in accordance 

with established standards. During and after the initial resettlement period, the 

Office of Refugee Resettlement at the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS/ORR) provides leadership, technical assistance, and funding to states, the 

District of Columbia, and nonprofit organizations to help refugees to become self 

sufficient and integrated into U.S. society. ORR programs use formula and 

discretionary grants to provide cash and medical assistance, employment and 

training programs, and other services to newly arriving and recently arrived 

refugees. Moreover, refugees are Americans in waiting upon arrival. Refugees are 

eligible for lawful employment upon arrival in the United States. After one year, a 

refugee is required to apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. 

Five years after admission, a refugee who has been granted lawful permanent 

resident status is eligible to apply for citizenship.

A number of factors create challenges for resettlement agencies striving to 

meet the needs of refugees in the program. The refugee population is ever more 

linguistically diverse, with wide-ranging educational and employment histories. 

To better prepare refugees for arrival in the United States, the USRAP continues to 

improve overseas cultural orientation, including thorough curricula review and 

teacher training. In 2013, we conducted a second round of pilot English as a 

Second Language classes for some refugees in Kenya, Thailand, and Nepal. By 

introducing the study of English overseas, these classes are intended to provide 

basic English competency and promote continued language learning after arrival in 

the United States. 
5

REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM FOR FY 2014

PROPOSED CEILINGS

TABLE I

REFUGEE ADMISSIONS IN FY 2012 AND FY 2013,

PROPOSED REFUGEE ADMISSIONS BY REGION FOR FY 2014

2

REGION

FY 2012

ACTUAL 

ARRIVALS

FY 2013

CEILING

FY 2013

PROJECTED 

ARRIVALS

PROPOSED 

FY2014

CEILING

Africa 10,608 12,000 15,000 14,000

East Asia 14,366 17,000 17,000 14,000

Europe and Central Asia 1,129 2,000 1,000 1,000

Latin America/Caribbean 2,078 5,000 4,500 5,000

Near East/South Asia 30,057 31,000 32,000 34,000

Regional Subtotal 58,238 67,000 69,500 68,000

Unallocated Reserve 3,000 2,000

Total 58,238 70,000 69,500 70,000

Generally, to be considered a refugee, a person must be outside his or her 

country of nationality or, if stateless, outside his or her country of last habitual 

residence. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 101(a)(42)(B), 

however, the President may specify circumstances under which individuals who 

are within their countries of nationality or last habitual residence may be 

considered a refugee for purposes of admission to the United States. The FY 2014

proposal recommends continuing such in-country processing for specified groups 

in Iraq, Cuba, Eurasia and the Baltics. Persons for whom resettlement is requested 

by a U.S. ambassador in any location in the world may also be considered, with the 

understanding that they will only be referred to the USRAP following Department 

of State consultation with USCIS at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Unallocated Reserve

 

2 These proposed figures assume enactment by Congress of the President’s Budget levels related to the U.S. 

Refugee Admissions Program elements.
6

This proposal includes 2,000 unallocated admissions numbers to be used if 

needed for additional refugee admissions from any region. The unallocated 

numbers would only be used following notification to Congress.

ADMISSIONS PROCEDURES

Eligibility Criteria

The Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration 

(PRM) is responsible for coordinating and managing the USRAP. A critical part 

of this responsibility is determining which individuals or groups from among the 

millions of refugees worldwide will have access to U.S. resettlement consideration. 

PRM coordinates within the Department of State, as well as with DHS/USCIS and 

other agencies, in carrying out this responsibility.

Section 207(a)(3) of the INA states that the USRAP shall allocate admissions 

among refugees “of special humanitarian concern to the United States in 

accordance with a determination made by the President after appropriate 

consultation.” Which individuals are “of special humanitarian concern” to the 

United States for the purpose of refugee resettlement consideration is determined 

through the USRAP priority system. There are currently three priorities or 

categories of cases:

Priority 1 – Individual cases referred to the program by virtue of their 

circumstances and apparent need for resettlement;

Priority 2 – Groups of cases designated as having access to the program 

by virtue of their circumstances and apparent need for resettlement;

Priority 3 – Individual cases from designated nationalities granted access 

for purposes of reunification with anchor family members already in the 

United States.

(Note: Refugees resettled in the United States may also seek the admission of 

spouses and unmarried children under 21 who are still abroad by filing a 

“Following to Join” petition, which obviates the need for a separate refugee claim 

adjudication. This option is described in more detail in the discussion of Visa 93 

below.)

Access to the program under one of the above-listed processing priorities 

does not mean an applicant meets the statutory definition of “refugee” or is 

admissible to the United States under the INA. The ultimate determination as to 

whether an applicant can be admitted as a refugee is made by DHS/USCIS in 
7

accordance with criteria set forth in the INA and various security protocols. 

Applicants who are eligible for access within the established priorities are 

presented to DHS/USCIS officers for interview.

Although the access categories to the USRAP are referred to as “processing 

priorities,” it is important to note that entering the program under a certain priority 

does not establish precedence in the order in which cases will be processed. Once 

cases are established as eligible for access under one of the three processing 

priorities, they all undergo the same processing steps. 

PRIORITY 1 – INDIVIDUAL REFERRALS

Priority 1 (P-1) allows consideration of refugee claims from persons of any 

nationality3, usually with compelling protection needs, for whom resettlement 

appears to be the appropriate durable solution. Priority 1 cases are identified and 

referred to the program by UNHCR, a U.S. Embassy, or a designated NGO. 

UNHCR, which has the international mandate worldwide to provide protection to 

refugees, has historically referred the vast majority of cases under this priority. 

Some NGOs providing humanitarian assistance in locations where there are large 

concentrations of refugees have also undergone training by PRM and DHS/USCIS 

and have been designated eligible to provide Priority 1 referrals. 

Process for Priority 1 Individual Referral Applications

Priority 1 referrals from UNHCR and NGOs are generally submitted to the 

appropriate Regional Refugee Coordinator, who forwards the referrals to the 

appropriate Resettlement Support Center (RSC4) for case processing and 

scheduling of the DHS/USCIS interview. PRM’s Office of Admissions reviews 

embassy referrals for completeness and may consult with DHS in considering these 

referrals. 

A U.S. ambassador may make a Priority 1 referral for persons still in their 

country of origin if the ambassador determines that such cases are in need of 

exceptional treatment and the Departments of State (PRM) and Homeland Security 

(USCIS) concur. In some cases, a Department of State request to DHS/USCIS for 

parole may be a more appropriate option.

PRIORITY 2 – GROUP REFERRALS

 

3 Referrals of North Koreans and Palestinians require State Department and DHS/USCIS concurrence before they 

may be granted access to the USRAP.

4

Formerly known as Overseas Processing Entities (OPEs)
8

Priority 2 (P-2) includes specific groups (within certain nationalities, clans 

or ethnic groups, sometimes in specified locations) identified by the Department of 

State in consultation with DHS/USCIS, NGOs, UNHCR, and other experts as 

being in need of resettlement. Some Priority 2 groups are processed in their 

country of origin. The process of identifying the group and its characteristics 

includes consideration of whether the group is of special humanitarian concern to 

the United States and whether members of the group will likely be able to qualify 

for admission as refugees under U.S. law. Groups may be designated as Priority 2 

during the course of the year as circumstances dictate, and the need for 

resettlement arises. PRM plays the coordinating role for all group referrals to the 

USRAP. 

There are two distinct models of Priority 2 access to the program: open 

access and predefined group access, normally upon the recommendation of 

UNHCR. Under both models, Priority 2 designations are made based on shared 

characteristics that define the group. In general, the possession of these 

characteristics is the reason the group has been persecuted in the past or faces 

persecution in the future.

The open-access model for Priority 2 group referrals allows individuals to 

seek access to the program on the basis of meeting designated criteria. To 

establish an open-access Priority 2 group, PRM, in consultation with DHS/USCIS, 

and (as appropriate) with UNHCR and others, defines the specific criteria for 

access. Once the designation is in place, applicants may approach the program at 

any of the processing locations specified as available for the group to begin the 

application process. Applicants must demonstrate that they meet specified criteria 

to establish eligibility for inclusion.

The open-access model has functioned well in the in-country programs, 

including the long-standing programs in Eurasia and the Baltics, and in Cuba. It 

was also used successfully for Vietnamese for nearly thirty years (1980-2009), 

Bosnian refugees during the 1990s, and is now in use for Iranian religious 

minorities and Iraqis with links to the United States. 

The RSCs responsible for handling open-access Priority 2 applications, 

working under the direction of PRM, make a preliminary determination as to 

whether the applicants qualify for access and should be presented to DHS/USCIS 

for interview. Applicants who clearly do not meet the access requirements are 

“screened out” prior to DHS/USCIS interview.

In contrast to an open-access group, a predefined group designation is 

normally based on a UNHCR recommendation that lays out eligibility criteria that 
9

should apply to individuals in a specific location. Once PRM has established the 

access eligibility criteria for the group, in consultation with DHS/USCIS, the 

referring entity (usually UNHCR) provides the bio data of eligible refugee 

applicants for processing. This type of group referral is advantageous in situations 

in which the intensive labor required to generate individual referrals would be 

impracticable, potentially harmful to applicants due to delays, or 

counterproductive. Often, predefined groups are composed of persons with similar 

persecution claims. The predefined group referral process saves steps and can 

conserve scarce resources, particularly for UNHCR. In recent years, predefined 

groups have included certain Burmese in Thailand, certain Bhutanese in Nepal, and 

certain Eritreans in Ethiopia. Predefined group referrals with clear, well-defined 

eligibility criteria and several methods for cross-checking group membership can 

serve as a fraud deterrent as well, preventing non-group members from gaining 

access to the USRAP by falsely claiming group membership. It can also speed the 

resettlement process in cases where immediate protection concerns are present.

FY 2014 Priority 2 Designations

In-country processing programs

The following ongoing programs that process individuals still in their 

country of origin under Priority 2 group designations will continue in FY 2013:

Eurasia and the Baltics

This Priority 2 designation applies to Jews, Evangelical Christians, and Ukrainian 

Catholic and Orthodox religious adherents identified in the Lautenberg 

Amendment, Public Law No. 101-167, § 599D, 103 Stat. 1261 (1989), as amended 

(“Lautenberg Amendment”), with close family in the United States. With annual 

renewal of the Lautenberg Amendment, these individuals are considered under a 

reduced evidentiary standard for establishing a well-founded fear of persecution. 

Cuba

Included in this Priority 2 program are human rights activists, members of 

persecuted religious minorities, former political prisoners, forced-labor conscripts, 

persons deprived of their professional credentials or subjected to other 

disproportionately harsh or discriminatory treatment resulting from their perceived 

or actual political or religious beliefs or activities, and persons who have 

experienced or fear harm because of their relationship – family or social – to 

someone who falls under one of the preceding categories.

Iraqis Associated with the United States
10

Under various Priority 2 designations, including those set forth in the Refugee 

Crisis in Iraq Act, employees of the U.S. Government, a U.S. government-funded 

contractor or grantee, U.S. media or U.S. NGOs working in Iraq, and certain 

family members of such employees, as well as beneficiaries of approved I-130 

(immigrant visa) petitions, are eligible for refugee processing in Iraq. 

Groups of Humanitarian Concern outside the Country of Origin 

The following Priority 2 groups are already designated and, in most cases, 

undergoing processing with significant arrivals anticipated during FY 2013. 

(Additional Priority 2 groups may be designated over the course of the year.)

Ethnic Minorities and others from Burma in camps in Thailand

Under this existing Priority 2 designation, individuals who have fled Burma and 

who are registered in nine refugee camps along the Thai/Burma border and who 

are identified by UNHCR as in need of resettlement are eligible for processing.

Ethnic Minorities from Burma in Malaysia

Under this Priority 2 designation, ethnic minorities from Burma who are 

recognized by UNHCR as refugees in Malaysia and identified as being in need of 

resettlement are eligible for processing. 

Bhutanese in Nepal

Under this existing Priority 2 designation, Bhutanese refugees registered by 

UNHCR in camps in Nepal and identified as in need of resettlement are eligible for 

processing. 

Iranian Religious Minorities

Under this Priority 2 designation, Iranian members of certain religious minorities 

are eligible for processing and are considered under a reduced evidentiary standard 

for establishing a well-founded fear of persecution, pursuant to annual renewal of 

the Lautenberg Amendment as amended in 2004 by Sec. 213, Division E, of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, P.L. 108-199 (“the Specter 

Amendment”). 

Iraqis Associated with the United States 

Under various Priority 2 designations, including those set forth in the Refugee 

Crisis in Iraq Act, employees of the U.S. government, a U.S. government-funded 

contractor or grantee, U.S. media or U.S. NGOs working in Iraq, and certain 
11

family members of such employees, as well as beneficiaries of approved I-130 

(immigrant visa) petitions, are eligible for refugee processing. This program is 

operating in Jordan and Egypt, in addition to the in-country program in Iraq.

Congolese in Rwanda

Under this new Priority 2 designation, certain Congolese refugees in Rwanda who 

were verifiably registered in 1997 and identified as in need of resettlement are 

eligible for processing. 

PRIORITY 3 – FAMILY REUNIFICATION 

The Priority 3 (P-3) category affords USRAP access to members of 

designated nationalities who have immediate family members in the United States 

who initially entered as refugees or were granted asylum. At the beginning of each 

fiscal year, PRM, in consultation with DHS/USCIS, establishes the list of 

nationalities eligible for processing under this priority. The PRM Assistant 

Secretary may modify the list during the year, in consultation with DHS/USCIS, 

but additions or deletions are generally made to coincide with the fiscal year.

Inclusion on the P-3 list represents a finding by PRM that the nationality is 

of special humanitarian concern to the United States for the purpose of familyreunification refugee processing. Eligible nationalities are selected following 

careful review of several factors. UNHCR’s annual assessment of refugees in need 

of resettlement, provides insight into ongoing refugee situations, which could 

create the need for family-reunification processing. In addition, prospective or 

ongoing repatriation efforts and U.S. foreign policy interests must be weighed in 

determining which nationalities should be eligible.

The P-3 program has undergone significant changes in recent years. In order 

to qualify for access under P-3 procedures, an applicant must have been outside of 

his or her country of origin, have had an Affidavit of Relationship (AOR) filed on 

his or her behalf by an eligible “anchor” relative in the United States during a 

period in which the nationality was included on the eligibility list, and have been 

cleared for onward processing by the DHS/USCIS Refugee Access Verification 

Unit (RAVU).

The following family members of the U.S.-based anchor are qualified for 

inclusion on the case: spouses, unmarried children under 21, and/or parents. 

Qualifying anchors are persons who were admitted to the United States as refugees 
12

or were granted asylum, including persons who are lawful permanent residents or 

U.S. citizens who initially were admitted to the United States as refugees or were 

granted asylum. 

In addition to the qualifying family members of a U.S.-based anchor listed 

above, on a case-by-case basis, an individual may be added on to a P-3 case if that 

individual:

1) lived in the same household as the Qualifying Family Member in the 

country of nationality or, if stateless, last habitual residence; AND

2) was part of the same economic unit as the Qualifying Family Member in 

the country of nationality or, if stateless, last habitual residence; AND

3) demonstrates exceptional and compelling humanitarian circumstances 

that justify inclusion on the Qualifying Family Member’s case.

These individuals “are not “spouses” or “children”, under INA 

207(c)(2)(A)” and thus cannot derive their refugee status from the Principal 

Applicant. They must, therefore, independently establish that they qualify as a 

refugee.

In March 2008, in consultation with DHS/USCIS, PRM suspended

P-3 processing and issued a moratorium on P-3 arrivals from certain processing 

locations due to indications of extremely high rates of fraud in claimed family 

relationships identified through pilot DNA testing. Further, in October 2008, PRM 

suspended the acceptance of AORs of all nationalities while PRM and 

DHS/USCIS examined whether additional procedures could be incorporated into 

P-3 processing to detect and deter fraud in the future. 

On October 15, 2012, we resumed P-3 processing with a newly approved 

AOR that is an official Department of State form (DS-7656); contains new 

language about penalties for committing fraud; and alerts filers that DNA evidence 

of certain claimed biological parent-child relationships will be required in order to 

gain access to a USCIS interview for refugee admission to the United States 

through the P-3 program. PRM and USCIS have worked closely with domestic 

resettlement agency partners to ensure they are aware of the changes to the form 

and the P-3 program, and have provided training so that they can educate their own 

affiliate staff on completion of the new AOR. Similarly, we have worked closely 

with our overseas Resettlement Support Centers to ensure that rigorous DNA 

collection and chain of custody procedures are in place. As of June 30, we have 

received more than 1,000 AORs that are in various stages of processing, mostly in 

East Africa. None of these cases are expected to arrive in the United States until 

2014.
13

FY 2014 Priority 3 Nationalities

P-3 processing is available to individuals of the following nationalities:

Afghanistan 

Bhutan

Burma

Burundi

Central African Republic

Colombia

Cuba

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Haiti

Iran

Iraq

Mali

Republic of Congo (ROC)

Somalia

South Sudan

Sri Lanka

Sudan

Syria

Uzbekistan

VISA 93 – FAMILY REUNIFICATION FOLLOWING-TO-JOIN PETITIONS

Under 8 CFR Section 207, a principal refugee admitted to the United States 

may request following-to-join benefits for his or her spouse and/or unmarried 

children under the age of 21 if the family has become separated. Once in the 

United States, and within two years of admission, the refugee may file a Form I730 Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition5 with DHS/USCIS for each eligible family 

member. If the Form I-730 petition is approved by DHS/USCIS (signifying 

adequate proof of a qualifying family relationship), the National Visa Center then 

forwards the petition for travel document processing to the embassy or consulate 

nearest to the location of the beneficiary. 

 

5 This petition is used to file for the relatives of refugees and asylees, known as Visa 93 and Visa 92 cases 

respectively. The Refugee Admissions Program handles only Visa 93 cases, which are counted within the annual 

refugee admissions ceiling. Visa 92 cases are not considered to be refugee admissions cases and are not counted 

in the number of refugees admitted annually.
14

Cases gaining access to the USRAP through an approved I-730 petition are 

interviewed by DHS/USCIS or consular officers to verify the relationships claimed 

in the petition, as well as to examine any applicable bars to status and admissibility 

to the United States. The beneficiaries are not required to demonstrate persecution 

claims, as they derive their status from the refugee relative in the United States 

who filed the petition. Beneficiaries of I-730 petitions may be processed within 

their country of origin or in other locations. In 2011, USCIS and the Department 

of State launched a pilot program to test new procedures to increase the efficiency, 

consistency, and security of overseas processing of I-730 Refugee/Asylee Relative 

Petitions. The program was further expanded in 2013. 

Anchor relatives in the United States may file an I-730 Refugee/Asylee 

Relative Petition and seek Priority 3 access (if eligible) simultaneously. In some 

cases, the I-730 will be the only option as the family members are still in their 

country of origin. It is also important to note that the I-730 or “follow-to-join” 

process does not allow the relative in the United States to petition for parents as the 

P-3 process does.

DHS/USCIS REFUGEE ADJUDICATIONS

Section 207(c) of the INA grants the Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security authority to admit, at his/her discretion, any refugee who is not 

firmly resettled in a third country, who is determined to be of special humanitarian 

concern, and who is admissible to the United States. The authority to determine 

eligibility for refugee status has been delegated to USCIS. Beginning in FY 2006, 

DHS/USCIS restructured the Refugee Affairs Division and established the Refugee 

Corps, a specially trained cadre of officers dedicated to adjudicating applications 

for refugee status. The Refugee Corps provides DHS/USCIS with the necessary 

resources and flexibility to respond to an increasingly diversified refugee 

admissions program. DHS/USCIS has also substantially enhanced its security 

vetting, anti-fraud, and training capacity related to refugee processing.

The Eligibility Determination

In order to be approved as a refugee, an applicant must meet the refugee 

definition contained in § 101(a)(42) of the INA. That section provides that a 

refugee is a person who is outside his or her country of nationality or last habitual 

residence and is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of 

persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, 

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. As 

mentioned above, the President may specify special circumstances under which a 

person can meet the refugee definition when he or she is still within the country of 
15

origin. The definition excludes a person who has ordered, incited, assisted, or 

otherwise participated in persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Further, an applicant 

who has been “firmly resettled” in a third country may not be admitted as a refugee 

under INA Section207. Applicants are also subject to various statutory grounds of 

inadmissibility, including criminal, security, and public health grounds, some of 

which may be waived or from which applicants may be exempted.

The grounds of ineligibility that apply to refugee applicants include the 

broad terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds (TRIG) at Section 212(a)(3)(B) of 

the INA. Beginning in 2006, the Departments of Homeland Security, State, and 

Justice began to exercise a discretionary Secretarial authority to exempt certain 

categories of refugee applicants from TRIG inadmissibility based on a 

determination that they did not represent a threat to the United States and otherwise 

merited an exemption for humanitarian purposes. As of May 2013, more than 

11,890 TRIG exemptions have been granted to refugee applicants.6 

A DHS/USCIS officer conducts a non-adversarial, face-to-face interview of 

each refugee applicant designed to elicit information about the applicant’s claim 

for refugee status and any grounds of ineligibility. The officer asks questions 

about the applicant’s experiences in the country of origin, including problems and 

fears about returning (or remaining), as well as questions concerning the 

applicant’s activities, background, and criminal history. The officer also considers 

evidence about conditions in the country of origin and assesses the applicant’s 

credibility and claim. 

Background Checks

Refugee applicants of all nationalities are required to undergo background 

security checks. Security checks include biographic name checks for all refugee 

applicants and biometric (fingerprint) checks for refugee applicants aged 14 to 79.

PRM, through its overseas Resettlement Support Centers, initiates required 

biographic name checks, while USCIS is responsible for collecting biometric data 

for screening. Biographic and biometric information is vetted against a broad array 

of law enforcement, intelligence community, and other relevant databases to help 

confirm identity, to check for any criminal or other derogatory information 

(including watchlist information), and to identify information that could inform 

lines of questioning during the interview. Refugee applicants must clear all 

required security checks prior to final approval of their application.

 

6 Nearly 6,500 of these exemptions pertained to Burmese applicants who had associations with groups that met the 

statutory definition of an undesignated “terrorist organization” in Section 212(a)(3)(B). Approximately 5,000 of the 

exemptions related to applicants who provided material support to a terrorist organization under duress – for 

example, Iraqi applicants who paid a ransom for a kidnapped family member.
16

In late 2010, the USRAP implemented an enhanced security check 

requirement for all refugee applicants. While implementing the enhanced check 

was critical to strengthening the integrity of the program, refugee admissions were 

disrupted in FY 2011 and FY 2012. Interagency coordination and processing 

procedures were improved, however, resulting in increased refugee admissions 

levels beginning in May 2012. Admissions levels continued at these higher levels 

in FY 2013.

PROCESSING ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Overseas Processing Services

In most processing locations, PRM engages an NGO, an international 

organization (IO), or U.S. embassy contractors to manage a Resettlement Support 

Center (RSC) that assists in the processing of refugees for admission to the United 

States. RSC staff pre-screen applicants to determine preliminarily if they qualify 

for one of the applicable processing priorities and to prepare cases for DHS/USCIS 

adjudication. The RSCs assist applicants in completing documentary requirements 

and schedule DHS/USCIS refugee eligibility interviews. If an applicant is 

conditionally approved for resettlement, RSC staff guide the refugee through postadjudication steps, including obtaining medical screening exams and attending 

cultural orientation programs. The RSC obtains sponsorship assurances and, once 

all required steps are completed, refers the case to IOM for transportation to the 

United States.

In FY 2013, NGOs (Church World Service, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, 

and International Rescue Committee) worked under cooperative agreements with 

PRM as RSCs at locations in Austria (covering Austria only), Kenya (covering 

sub-Saharan Africa), and Thailand (covering East Asia). International 

organizations and NGOs (IOM and the International Catholic Migration 

Commission) support refugee processing activities based in Ecuador, Jordan, 

Russia, Nepal, and Turkey covering Latin America, the Middle East, South and 

Central Asia, and Europe. The U.S. Department of State supports refugee 

processing in Havana, Cuba.

Cultural Orientation

The Department of State strives to ensure that refugees who are accepted for 

admission to the United States are prepared for the profound life changes they will 

experience by providing cultural orientation programs prior to departure for the 
17

United States. It is critical that refugees arrive with a realistic idea of what their 

new lives will be like, what services will be available to them, and what their 

responsibilities will be.

Every refugee family receives Welcome to the United States, a resettlement 

guidebook developed with contributions from refugee resettlement workers, 

resettled refugees, and government officials. In 2013 the Welcome guide was 

completely revised to support overseas and domestic cultural orientation. The 

previous edition is still available in 15 languages: Albanian, Amharic, Arabic, 

Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, Farsi, French, Karen, Kirundi, Nepali, Russian, Somali, 

Spanish, Swahili, Tigrinya, and Vietnamese while the new edition in available in 

English with translations in process. Through this book, refugees have access to 

accurate information about the initial resettlement period before they arrive. The

Welcome to the United States refugee orientation video is available in 13 

languages: Arabic, English, Farsi, Hmong, Karen, Karenni, Kirundi, Nepali, 

Russian, Somali, Spanish, Swahili, and Tigrinya. In addition, the Department of 

State funds one- to five-day pre-departure orientation classes for eligible refugees 

at sites throughout the world. In an effort to further bridge the information gap for 

certain groups, brief video presentations featuring the experience of recently 

resettled refugees of the same ethnic group are made available to refugee 

applicants overseas.

Transportation

The Department of State funds the international transportation of refugees 

resettled in the United States through a program administered by IOM. The cost of 

transportation is provided to refugees in the form of a loan. Refugees are 

responsible for repaying these loans over time, beginning six months after their 

arrival, although it is possible to request a deferral based on inability to begin 

paying at six months.

Reception and Placement (R&P)

In FY 2013, PRM funded cooperative agreements with nine private 

voluntary agencies to provide initial resettlement services to refugees arriving in 

the United States. The R&P agencies are responsible for providing initial 

reception and core services (including housing, furnishings, clothing and food, as 

well as assistance with access to medical, employment, educational, and social 

services) to arriving refugees. These services are provided according to standards 

of care within a framework of outcomes and indicators developed jointly by the 

NGO community, state refugee coordinators, and U.S. government agencies. The 

nine organizations maintain a nationwide network of some 350 affiliated offices to 
18

provide services. Two of the organizations also maintain a network of 24 affiliated 

offices through which unaccompanied refugee minors are placed into foster care, a 

program administered and funded by HHS/ORR.

Using R&P funds from PRM supplemented by cash and in-kind 

contributions from private and other sources, the participating agencies provide the 

following services, consistent with the terms of the R&P cooperative agreement:

Sponsorship;

Pre-arrival resettlement planning, including placement;

Reception on arrival;

Basic needs support (including housing, furnishings, food, and clothing) 

for at least 30 days;

Cultural orientation; 

Assistance with access to health, employment, education, and other 

services as needed; and

Development and implementation of an initial resettlement plan for each 

refugee for 30-90 days.

OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT (ORR) 

Through the Refugee Act, Congress directed HHS/ORR to provide refugees 

with: employment training, English language training, cash assistance (in a manner 

that promotes independence), and job placement – including providing women 

with equal opportunities to employment as men – so that refugees can achieve 

economic self-sufficiency as quickly as possible. ORR is committed to helping

refugees transition into the U.S. by providing this assistance and other benefits, 

services, and guidance that will enable them to achieve self-sufficiency and 

become integrated members of society. To this end, ORR administers numerous 

programs, some of which are highlighted below. 

State-Administered or Wilson-Fish Programs 

Under ORR’s state-administered or Wilson-Fish (WF) programs, refugees 

(who are not eligible for TANF or Medicaid) are eligible to receive up to eight 

months of Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) and Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA)

upon arrival. RCA benefits are equivalent to welfare cash benefit levels 

established by state governments.
19

The WF program is an alternative to the state-administered program, and is 

usually administered by local voluntary resettlement agencies. The WF program 

emphasizes early employment and economic self-sufficiency by integrating cash 

assistance, case management, and employment services, and by incorporating 

innovative strategies for the provision of cash assistance (e.g. financial bonuses for 

early employment). There are currently 13 WF programs nationwide. 

ORR also provides states/WF programs with Formula Refugee Social 

Services (RSS) and Targeted Assistance (TAG) funds. ORR distributes these funds 

based on arrival numbers and refugee concentration levels in counties with a high 

utilization of public assistance. Funding is time limited, and refugees can only 

access RSS and TAG services up to five years after arrival. These services include: 

employability services, employment assessment services, on-the-job training, 

English language instruction, vocational training, case management, 

translation/interpreter services, social adjustment services, health-related services, 

home management, and if necessary for employment, day care and transportation. 

Additionally, to assist specific groups of refugees, ORR administers the 

following specialized programs through states/WF programs, including CubanHaitian, Older Refugees, Preventive Health, Refugee School Impact, and Targeted 

Assistance.

Matching Grant Program

The Matching Grant program (MG) is provided through the nine national 

voluntary agencies that provide R & P services and their resettlement affiliates in 

42 states. The objective of MG is to guide refugee households toward economic 

self-sufficiency through employment within four to six months (120 to 180 days) 

of program eligibility (usually within the first month of arrival). In MG, selfsufficiency is defined as total household income from employment that enables a 

family unit to support itself without receipt of public cash assistance. ORR awards 

$2,200 on a per capita basis to each national voluntary agency, which then 

allocates funds to its local service providers based on projected enrollments. 

Agencies provide a 50% match to every federal dollar. 

Local service providers ensure core maintenance services for a minimum of 

120 days which include housing, transportation, food, and a cash allowance. 

Clients also receive intensive case management and employment services. 

Refugees who are unable to attain self-sufficiency by day 120 or 180, may access 

RCA for the remainder of the eight month eligibility period. In FY 12, over 

35,000 individuals were enrolled in the program, 71% of whom achieved selfsufficiency. 
20

Refugee Health

ORR recently created a Division of Refugee Health (DRH) to address the

health and well-being of refugees. DRH is working on various initiatives

including: collaborating with partners in the implementation of the Affordable 

Care Act (ACA); administering the Survivors of Torture program; providing 

technical assistance on medical screening guidelines, mental health awareness and 

linkages, suicide prevention, emergency preparedness and other health and mental 

health initiatives (e.g. vision care, autism, etc). 

Unaccompanied Refugee Minor (URM) Program

ORR provides funds to 15 states who administer over 20 URM programs. 

States contract with local licensed foster care agencies that provide specialized 

placements and services. URMs live in various placements including: traditional 

and therapeutic foster homes, relatives’ homes, group homes, semi-independent 

and independent living and residential treatment centers. URMs receive various 

services including: English language training, educational and vocational training, 

cultural preservation, social integration, family tracing, permanency planning, 

independent living, and health/mental health care. ORR regulations require states 

to provide services in parity with the state’s Title IV-B foster care plan. 

Other Refugee Service Programs

ORR also provides funding to non-profit agencies to focus on special 

initiatives or programs for refugees including: case management, ethnic 

community development, home-based child care business development, individual 

development accounts, microenterprise development, and agricultural projects. 

Technical Assistance

ORR provides technical assistance (TA) to resettlement stakeholders 

through various organizations that have expertise in certain fields. Currently 

ORR’s TA providers assist stakeholders in the areas of community 

engagement/integration, child welfare, employment, health, Lesbian Gay Bisexual 

and Transgender (LGBT) populations, survivors of torture, and Temporary 

Assistance to Needy Families state programs. 
21

REGIONAL PROGRAMS

TABLE II

PROPOSED FY 2014 REGIONAL CEILINGS BY PRIORITY

AFRICA

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 11,000

Priority 2 Groups 2,500

Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees 500

Total Proposed: 14,000

EAST ASIA

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 3,000

Priority 2 Groups 10,800

Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees 200

Total Proposed: 14,000

EUROPE / CENTRAL ASIA

Priority 1 Individual Referrals

Priority 2 Groups 1,000

Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees

Total Proposed: 1,000

LATIN AMERICA / CARIBBEAN

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 400

Priority 2 Groups 4,550

Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees 50

Total Proposed: 5,000

NEAR EAST / SOUTH ASIA

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 16,950

Priority 2 Groups 17,000

Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees

 50

Total Proposed: 34,000

UNALLOCATED RESERVE 2,000

TOTAL PROPOSED CEILING: 70,000
22

AFRICA

There are currently some 3.2 million refugees across the African continent, 

constituting roughly 20 percent of the global refugee population. UN-organized 

repatriations were still underway in 2013 for refugees able to return to safe areas in 

northwestern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and South Sudan. Organized 

repatriations to Angola, Liberia, and Rwanda have largely been completed, but 

residual refugee populations remain. UNHCR recommended cessation of prima 

facie refugee status for refugees from Angola and Liberia effective June 30, 2012, 

and for pre-1999 caseload Rwandan refugees effective June 30, 2013. Efforts 

continue to repatriate those who still wish to return and to locally integrate residual 

populations where asylum countries agree to provide permanent residence or 

citizenship.

While there has been significant voluntary repatriation among African 

refugee populations over the past decade, ongoing conflict in the DRC, Mali, 

Somalia, and Sudan, and political repression in Eritrea have resulted in over 

900,000 new refugees in 2011-2013. Conflict between the Sudanese government 

and rebel groups has resulted in some 233,000 new Sudanese refugees in South 

Sudan, Ethiopia, and Kenya since June 2011. In Central African Republic, the 

Séléka alliance’s advance on Bangui caused 49,000 refugees to flee to neighboring 

countries at the end of 2012 and beginning of 2013, bringing the total number of 

Central African refugees to over 200,000. Continued fighting and food insecurity 

in Somalia forced some 67,000 to flee to neighboring countries in the Horn of 

Africa region in 2012 and over 11,000 to date in 2013, bringing total Somali 

refugee numbers to over one million. Intensified conflict in eastern DRC has led 

an additional 110,000 Congolese to seek asylum in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and 

Zambia since mid-2012. Fighting erupted in northern Mali in January 2012, thus 

far generating more than 175,000 refugees. Finally, Eritreans continue to seek 

asylum in neighboring countries due to increasing political repression and the 

excessive demands of national service; an average of 1,600 in March and April 

2013 arrived in Ethiopia (a significant uptick compared to previous average of 

800-1,000 per month) and fewer in Sudan, many attempting dangerous onward 

migration to Europe and the Middle East in search of refuge in countries with

better economic opportunities. Conflicts in neighboring regions have also 

impacted Africa, with the ongoing crisis in Syria resulting in outflows of refugees 

to Egypt (56,000 registered refugees as of May 28, 2013) and greater North Africa 

(11,455 registered refugees as of May 2013). 

Most African countries honor the principle of first asylum, and for those 

countries that lack formal mechanisms for asylum, we continue to advocate for the 

establishment of systems. Traditionally, refugees in Africa have been allowed to 
23

remain – and in many cases to effectively economically and/or socially integrate –

until voluntary repatriation is possible. However, in most cases, this de facto 

integration does not include legal integration, such as the granting of legal 

permanent residence, the right to work, or voting rights. Several countries, 

including Zambia, Côte d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria,

and Sierra Leone have initiated programs legalizing the status (de jure local 

integration) of long-staying refugee populations interested in remaining on their 

territories. In 2008, Tanzania announced a plan to grant citizenship to Burundi 

refugees who fled their country in 1972. Some 165,000 have accepted the offer of 

“naturalization,” but most do not have official documentation of their new 

citizenship. Lack of international support for the installation of the “newly 

naturalized Tanzanians” in new communities could put full implementation in 

jeopardy.

Religious Freedom

In Sub-Saharan Africa, people are generally free to practice their chosen 

religions. Governments regularly provide for and respect freedom of religion, 

although in some countries, such as Eritrea and Sudan, religious freedom is 

limited, particularly in the midst of ethnic and other conflicts.

The Government of Eritrea is responsible for severe religious freedom 

abuses in Africa. In recent years the country has engaged in serious religious 

repression by harassing, arresting, and detaining members of independent 

evangelical groups, including Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witnesses (who lost 

certain rights of citizenship for not participating in the 1993 national referendum). 

Detainees are held in harsh conditions and some have died in custody. The 

government has also sought greater control over the four State-approved religious 

groups: the Eritrean Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the 

Evangelical (Lutheran) Church, and the Islamic community. The government 

reportedly holds individuals who are jailed for their religious affiliation at various 

locations. Often detainees are not formally charged, accorded due process, or 

allowed access to their families. While many are ostensibly jailed for evasion of 

military conscription, significant numbers were being held solely for their religious 

beliefs; the current estimate is 1,500 individuals detained on religious grounds. As 

of December 2012, Human Rights Watch reported that 56 known Jehovah’s 

Witnesses were in detention without access to legal representation, and many had

not been charged with a crime. At least three Jehovah's Witnesses had been 

detained for 15 years, reportedly for evading compulsory military service, a term 

far beyond the maximum legal penalty of two years for refusing to perform 

national service.
24

In Sudan, the government continues to place restrictions on Christians in a 

manner that is inconsistent with its obligation to uphold freedom of religion. 

Although there is no penalty for converting from another religion to Islam, 

converting from Islam is punishable by death. There is no evidence that the 

current government has ever imposed this penalty, but authorities express their 

strong prejudice against conversion by occasionally subjecting converts to intense 

scrutiny, ostracism, and intimidation, or by encouraging converts to leave the 

country.

Both Eritrea and Sudan are currently designated as “Countries of Particular 

Concern” (CPC) for particularly severe violations of religious freedom by the 

Department of State under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. The 

USRAP continues to be available through Priority 1 referrals to Sudanese, Eritrean, 

and other refugees who are victims of religious intolerance. Refugees from Eritrea 

and Sudan with certain refugee or asylee family members in the United States will

have access to the USRAP through Priority 3. Certain Eritrean refugees in 

Ethiopia may have access to the USRAP through Priority 2.

In Somalia, a provisional federal constitution replaced the Transitional 

Federal Charter (TFC) on August 1, 2012. In September, a new parliament elected 

a new president and ended nearly eight years of transitional governance. The 

provisional constitution provides for freedom of religion, although it enshrines 

Islam as the state religion and prohibits proselytism for any religion other than 

Islam. The trend in the Transitional Federal Government’s (TFG) and the new 

government’s respect for freedom of religion did not change significantly during 

the year. The TFG had limited capacity to enforce the TFC and the new 

government had limited capacity to enforce the provisional constitution. In 

addition, the country was fragmented into regions administered by different 

entities, and neither the TFG nor the new government could implement the TFC or 

the provisional constitution in areas of the country outside its control. There have 

also been reports that non-Muslim individuals experience discrimination, violence, 

and detention because of their religious beliefs. Refugees from Somalia with 

certain refugee or asylee family members in the United States also have access to 

the USRAP through Priority 3.

Voluntary Repatriation

Despite the continued existence of protracted refugee situations, voluntary 

repatriation to improved conditions in the home country remains the most common 

and desirable durable solution. With the conclusion of various peace agreements 

and the support of the U.S. Government and other donors, UNHCR has made great 

progress in promoting and supporting refugee repatriation and reintegration in 
25

Africa. Over the past 20 years, net refugee numbers in Africa have fallen by nearly 

half (from six million at their height in the 1990s to 3.2 million today) even in the 

face of new outflows.

In West Africa, UNHCR launched its official repatriation program in 

February 2012 for some 69,000 remaining refugees from Côte d’Ivoire who had 

fled to Liberia in 2010 and 2011, returning an estimated 12,000 since the program 

began, though some of these returns were offset by new refugee outflows in 2012. 

Another 150,000 Ivoirian refugees spontaneously returned home starting in late 

2011 following the cessation of post-election hostilities in Côte d’Ivoire. The final 

round of UNHCR’s Liberian repatriation program was completed at the end of 

December 2012, with more than 155,000 Liberians benefiting from assisted returns 

since 2004; in all, more than 700,000 Liberians have returned home either 

spontaneously or with UNHCR assistance. UNHCR continues to focus on 

facilitating local integration for some 30,000 Liberians who remain in various 

West African countries – an effort it expects to last through 2013.

In East Africa, the repatriation to South Sudan that started in 2005 was 

largely concluded in 2011 with the return of more than 370,000 refugees – over 80

percent of the original refugee population of 500,000 has returned. However, due 

to instability in South Sudan, the pace of returns slowed considerably in 2012. 

Approximately 117,000 South Sudanese refugees are currently in neighboring 

countries, including 66,000 who fled the earlier civil war and 51,000 who fled 

recent fighting in 2012 and 2013. No repatriation initiatives are currently 

anticipated for the Darfur region of Sudan or Somalia, where insecurity continues 

to prevent safe and dignified return. Over one million Somalis have sought asylum 

in neighboring countries, most without any near-term prospect of return to 

Somalia. Coordination and regional plans for refugee returns when conditions are 

appropriate in Somalia by host governments (namely Kenya and Ethiopia), the 

newly-recognized Somali government, and UNHCR are strongly encouraged. 

Despite the efforts of some asylum countries to repatriate Eritrean refugees, 

UNHCR has strongly discouraged returns to Eritrea given ongoing political 

repression and harsh treatment of returnees.

In Central Africa, most organized repatriation to Burundi ended in 2010 and 

there have been over 500,000 returns since 2002, including over 53,000 of the 

1972-caseload refugees who chose not to accept the Government of Tanzania’s 

offer of naturalization. Repatriation of the last of the 1993-era Burundi refugees in 

Tanzania was completed with the closure of Mtabila Camp in December 2012. 

Although the majority of Rwandan refugees returned home in the late 1990’s, 

some 50,000-100,000 remain in exile. With the invocation of the cessation clause 

for pre-1999 Rwandan refugees on June 30, 2013, remaining Rwandans may be 
26

required either to repatriate or to seek other means of remaining in asylum 

countries. Repatriation to relatively stable areas of eastern DRC wound down in 

2011 with the conclusion of returns from Zambia and Tanzania to the Katanga 

Province, but renewed hostilities between the GDRC and the M23 rebel group 

erased most of these gains and North and South Kivu provinces remain mostly too 

insecure for large-scale refugee return and, in fact, have been characterized by 

significant new internal displacement and new refugee flows. Ethnic violence that 

erupted in late 2009 in Equateur Province forced some 160,000 Congolese to flee 

to the Central African Republic (CAR) and the Republic of Congo. A facilitated 

repatriation began in May 2012, and, as of May 2013, more than 72,000 refugees 

have been repatriated back to northwestern DRC. UNHCR hopes to repatriate an 

additional 15,000 refugees by the end of 2013. Additionally, the persistent threat 

of attack posed by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in northeastern DRC, 

southeastern CAR, and South Sudan continues to cause instability in the region, 

preventing the return of some 40,000 refugees and 400,000 IDPs displaced by the 

LRA since 2008.

Local Integration

In a number of protracted situations, refugees have been able to become selfsufficient, and their camps and settlements have been efficiently integrated both 

economically and socially into the host communities, even as legal rights lag 

behind. This integration dynamic has occurred particularly for refugees who fled 

during the 1960s through the early 1980s to countries that had arable land 

available, allowing many refugees to move out of camps. Despite such de facto

integration, refugees residing among the local population did not necessarily enjoy 

the rights, entitlements, or economic opportunities available to legal residents. As 

a result, this piecemeal integration was often an interim, rather than a durable, 

solution for many African refugees.

More recently, however, a number of African countries have offered more 

formal integration as a durable solution for residual refugee populations who will 

not or cannot repatriate. In conjunction with UNHCR, the Governments of Côte 

d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone launched 

a regional local integration program for Liberian and Sierra Leonean refugees in 

2007. That program provided refugees opportunities for economic self-reliance; 

activities to enhance the quality of their social integration; and legal rights and 

documentation, including access to citizenship in some countries and freedom of 

movement in all countries under the protocols of the Economic Community of 

West African States (ECOWAS). The Government of Zambia has pledged to 

provide permanent residence status to 10,000 former Angolan refugees -- mainly 
27

refugees who arrived before 1986, were born in Zambia, or are married to 

Zambians -- and is currently reviewing applications for those who meet eligibility 

criteria

Senegal offered Mauritanian refugees who wished to remain in Senegal the 

option of becoming Senegalese citizens in 2007, and UNHCR, in partnership with 

the Senegalese government, launched a campaign in 2012 to provide digitized and 

biometric identity cards to some 19,000 refugees (of whom 14,000 were 

Mauritanians) by the end of the year. The card guarantees holders the same rights 

as Senegalese citizens, including the right to residence in the country and to travel 

to ECOWAS member states. The Governments of Uganda and Mozambique have 

previously stated their intention to provide refugees with local integration 

opportunities and citizenship, but have not yet passed the required legislation. As 

mentioned above, the Government of Tanzania offered to provide permanent 

settlement and citizenship to nearly 200,000 1972-era Burundi refugees; some 

165,000 accepted the offer and were collectively naturalized, although the vast 

majority have not yet received documentation and the modalities of the integration 

process are still being negotiated. While not formal integration programs, a few 

countries have permitted refugees to live where they choose, outside of camps 

(Uganda and Niger, for example) or have temporarily adapted to natural rural to 

urban migration that involves refugees as well as nationals (for example, Kenya 

until late 2012), Ethiopia formally introduced an out-of-camp policy for Eritrean 

refugees in August 2010, allowing Eritreans to live outside camps if they are able 

to support themselves or if they have someone to sponsor them financially. While 

it does not give Eritrean refugees the right to work, it does offer additional 

educational opportunities, including tertiary education. 

Third-Country Resettlement

Given the political and economic volatility in many parts of Africa, 

resettlement to third countries outside the region is an essential durable solution 

and element of protection for certain refugees. With limited opportunities for 

permanent integration in many countries of asylum and the protracted nature of 

some refugee situations, the need for third-country resettlement of African refugees 

is expected to continue despite the overall decrease in the refugee population on 

the continent. In recent years, UNHCR has increasingly viewed resettlement as an 

important tool of protection for refugees in Africa and has shown an increase in 

resettlement referrals this past year. Several resettlement countries – including 

Canada and Australia – accept significant numbers of African refugees, but the 

United States resettles far more than any other country.
28

FY 2013 U.S. Admissions

We project nearly 15,000 African refugee arrivals in FY 2013 – higher than 

the anticipated number at the beginning of the year, thanks largely to progress 

made in clearing security checks more quickly.

Four countries of origin (Somalia, DRC, Eritrea, and Sudan) currently

account for the vast majority of U.S. admissions from the region. In East Africa, 

we continue to process P-1 Somalis in Kakuma refugee camp. Although 

processing in Dadaab camp has been suspended since October 2011 due to the 

security situation there, PRM funded the construction of a transit center in Kakuma 

to house refugees from Dadaab who were still awaiting interview. PRM moved 

approximately 1,700 refugees from Dadaab to Kakuma in FY 2013 for 

adjudication and out-processing. We admitted more refugees out of Ethiopia than 

from any other country in Africa this year, primarily Somalis from camps in the 

east and Eritreans from the northern camps, with approximately 3,500 departures 

to the United States. We are also processing an increasing number of DRC 

Congolese from Rwanda as part of the effort by UNHCR to refer 50,000 DRC 

Congolese for resettlement from Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania and Burundi over the 

next 5-7 years.

For the West Africa region, we continue to interview refugees from the 

Central African Republic in Southern Chad. We have completed the processing of 

the residual P-3 Liberian and Sierra Leonean caseloads in West Africa and will not 

take any new applications. This completion was made in time for the re-start of 

the P-3 family reunification program of the USRAP which launched at the start of 

FY 2013. 

We expect to see approximately 1,500 refugees admitted from the Southern 

Africa region, mainly Somalis from South Africa and DRC Congolese from 

elsewhere in the region; and just over 500 refugee admissions from West Africa 

mainly consisting of Central Africans processed in Chad. In all, we expect to 

admit refugees of more than 24 African nationalities, processed in 32 countries 

during FY 2013.

FY 2014 U.S. Resettlement Program

We propose up to 14,000 resettlement numbers for African refugees in FY 

2014. PRM has actively engaged relevant offices within the Department of State, 

UNHCR, the NGO community, and DHS/USCIS to identify caseloads appropriate 
29

for resettlement consideration. As a result of these discussions, PRM has 

identified a number of nationalities and groups for priority processing during FY 

2014.

From East and Southern Africa, we expect 11,000-12,000 admissions, 

primarily Somalis in Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti, and South Africa; Eritreans in 

Ethiopia and in Sudan; Congolese from Rwanda and Uganda, and additional small 

numbers of P-1 referrals of various nationalities in the countries above, as well as 

in Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. This number includes individuals who are 

referred based on a P-2 designation in Rwanda: survivors of a series of massacres 

that took place at the Mudende transit camp in Rwanda in 1997. We are also 

expecting UNHCR to refer approximately 200 unaccompanied refugee minors 

from camps in northern Ethiopia. From West and Central Africa, we expect some 

500 admissions. We anticipate a steady stream of referrals of Central African 

Republic refugees in Southern Chad, and we also intend to re-start the resettlement 

program for Sudanese Darfuris in Eastern Chad. UNHCR has referred some 1,000 

individuals in Eastern Chad that will be processed in FY 2014. 

Outside of sub-Saharan Africa, we anticipate up to 2,000 Sudanese, Somali, 

Ethiopian, Eritrean and other sub-Saharan African refugees to be processed in 

Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and Russia. Processing in these locations 

largely depends on the local security situation which will determine if teams of 

DHS/USCIS refugee officers can access these locations. 

Proposed FY 2014 Africa program to include arrivals from the following 

categories: 

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 11,000

Priority 2 Groups 2,500

Priority 3 Family Reunification 500

Total Proposed Ceiling 14,000

EAST ASIA 

Several East Asian countries host large and diverse refugee populations. 

Recent years have seen important developments for these groups, particularly 

involving the strategic use of resettlement as a durable solution. Thailand, 

Malaysia, Bangladesh, and India continue to host large numbers of Burmese 

refugees and asylum-seekers. The U.S. Government continues to press for 
30

meaningful political and democratic reform and national reconciliation with ethnic 

minority groups in Burma, while recognizing reforms made over the past year by 

easing financial and investment sanctions. The international community continues 

to engage in discussions regarding the voluntary return of Burmese refugees, but 

acknowledges that ongoing conflict and the long road towards peace, national 

reconciliation and development make large-scale return of refugees in safety and 

with dignity a longer-term goal. 

The resettlement of more than 100,000 Burmese refugees from Thailand 

since 2006 – including more than 68,000 to the United States – has significantly 

reduced the number of Burmese refugees in the camps who are eligible for the U.S.

P-2 resettlement program. After more than seven years of large-scale resettlement,

we are approaching the natural conclusion of the group resettlement program that 

has specific eligibility criteria for Burmese refugees who were re-registered by 

UNHCR in 2005 and formally registered by the Government of Thailand. In 

January 2013, we began making rolling announcement deadlines for eligible 

Burmese refugees to apply for U.S. resettlement that vary by camp based on when 

resettlement operations began. So far, rolling announcements have been made in 

six of the nine camps, with the final three likely to be completed by the end of 

2013. The P-2 resettlement program will continue until we have completed the 

processing of every application received by the deadline for each camp. Refugees 

are not being asked to make a decision about returning to Burma but instead, the 

smaller numbers of refugees who are eligible for resettlement are being asked to 

decide if they want to pursue this opportunity. Those who do not exercise this 

option will be able to remain in the camps until safe and voluntary returns are 

possible. The United States will continue to accept individual referrals from 

UNHCR for all nationalities. 

Since 2006, UNHCR Malaysia has operated the second largest refugee status 

determination program in the world. As of April 2013, there were 102,070 persons 

of concern registered with UNHCR in Malaysia of which 93,600, or 92 percent, 

are from Burma (32,360 Chin, 26,910 stateless Rohingya from Burma’s Northern 

Rakhine State, 7,210 Rakhines, 10,540 Burmese Muslims, 3,590 Mon, 12,990 

Kachins and other ethnic minorities). In addition, some 8,460 asylum-seekers and 

refugees from various countries – primarily Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Sri 

Lanka – are registered with UNHCR in Malaysia. Malaysia is not a party to the 

1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol. We 

support UNHCR’s efforts to use resettlement as a strategic tool to assist refugees in 

Malaysia.
31

In July 1991, more than 250,000 Burmese Rohingya suffering de jure

statelessness and oppression due to their Muslim faith and ethnicity migrated from 

northern Rakhine State to Bangladesh. During the 1990s, over 230,000 Rohingya 

refugees were voluntarily repatriated from Bangladesh, leaving behind nearly 

30,000 refugees, who remain in two official refugee camps in southeastern 

Bangladesh. An additional 9,000 unregistered Rohingya reside in an unofficial 

settlement in Leda and approximately 26,000 unregistered Rohingya reside in the 

makeshift Kutupalong camp. In addition, an unknown number who had previously 

repatriated, have again returned to Bangladesh and are now living without UNHCR 

protection. Anywhere between 200,000-500,000 unregistered Rohingya live

outside of the two official UNHCR refugee camps in the Cox’s Bazaar district. 

UNHCR continues to work to enhance protection and address security concerns 

caused by growing tensions between both registered refugees and unregistered 

Rohingya and local Bangladeshis living outside of the camps. 

The cases of more than 500 individual Rohingyas, including 281 individuals 

approved for resettlement to several countries, have been on hold since October 

2010 when the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) halted resettlement activities 

pending a review of their refugee policy; the GOB has yet to issue a formal 

decision on a national refugee policy. We are prepared to resume resettlement 

activity immediately following a GOB decision. In addition, we expect ongoing 

UNHCR referrals of urban Burmese in India.

As reflected in the North Korean Human Rights Act, the United States 

remains deeply concerned about the human rights situation of North Koreans both 

inside the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and in various countries in the 

region. The United States began resettling interested, eligible North Korean 

refugees in 2006 and remains committed to continuing this program.

Religious Freedom

Although many governments in East Asia do not restrict religious freedom, 

religious believers face serious persecution in several countries. The DPRK, 

China, and Burma are designated by the Department of State as CPCs under the 

International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for systematic, ongoing, and 

egregious violations of religious freedom. 

The DPRK severely restricts religious freedom, including organized 

religious activity, except that which is supervised tightly by officially recognized 

groups linked to the government. Although the DPRK constitution provides for 

“freedom of religious belief,” genuine religious freedom does not exist. Little is 

known about the day-to-day life of religious persons in the country. Religious and 
32

human rights groups outside of the country have provided numerous reports that 

members of underground churches have been beaten, arrested, tortured, or killed 

because of their religious beliefs.

While the constitutions of China, Burma, and Vietnam provide for freedom 

of religion, in practice, these governments restrict or repress religious activities of 

some members of religious communities in a manner that is inconsistent with their 

commitments to uphold freedom of religion. 

The Chinese government continues to harass and interfere with unregistered 

religious groups, most notably the unofficial Catholic churches loyal to the Holy 

See, Protestant “house churches,” some Muslim groups (especially ethnic Uighur 

Muslims in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region), members of the Falun Gong, 

and Tibetan Buddhists loyal to the Dalai Lama. Certain religious or spiritual 

groups are banned by law. The criminal law defines banned groups as “evil cults” 

and those belonging to them can be sentenced to prison. This includes Falun Gong 

and some other qigong-based groups, in addition to some Christian groups. 

Religious believers have been harassed, arrested, detained in “black jails” without 

due process, sent to forced labor camps, and sentenced to long jail terms. There 

have been credible allegations of torture.

In Burma, the government continues to discriminate against religious 

minorities, in particular stateless Rohingya Muslims.

Vietnam and the United States signed an agreement on religious freedom in 

May 2005, under which Vietnam committed to improving the status of religious 

freedom in Vietnam. As a result of the progress Vietnam made after signing the 

agreement, the U.S. Government removed Vietnam from the CPC list in November 

2006. Over the past three years, Vietnam’s religious freedom record has been 

mixed. Progress has been made with regard to the registration/recognition of 

religious groups and congregations. In addition, religious groups have experienced 

expanded freedom of assembly. However, there are also reports of harassment at 

the local level, including through the use of land laws. Several Protestant 

congregations in rural areas continue to report harassment, including beatings and 

forced renunciations. 

Nationals of the DPRK, Vietnam, China, Laos, and Burma have access to 

the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. North Korean and Burmese refugees also 

have access to family reunification processing through Priority 3.
33

Voluntary Repatriation

Although the Burmese government has taken steps to implement some 

democratic and political reforms, ongoing fighting continues between the Burmese

Army and ethnic minority groups in Kachin and Shan States. National peace and 

reconciliation efforts will take time; thus, the repatriation of most Burmese 

refugees in Thailand, Bangladesh, Malaysia, India and elsewhere is not currently a 

viable solution. 

Local Integration

Due to fears of a “pull factor,” countries in the region have traditionally been 

reluctant to integrate refugees or to grant asylum. We hope that U.S. efforts to 

resettle large numbers of refugees from the camps along the Thai-Burma border 

will encourage the Thai government to improve livelihood opportunities for those 

refugees who will not be resettled. The United States and other donor 

governments continue to engage in a strategic dialogue with the Royal Thai 

government concerning the future of the nine camps on the Thai-Burma border. 

We recognize that the Thai government remains concerned that resettlement has 

not dramatically reduced the camp population as a mixture of new arrivals and 

Burmese who were living just outside of the camps are taking the place of those

who are departing for third countries. Local integration remains a difficult option, 

due to opposition from host countries, such as Thailand, Bangladesh, Malaysia, 

and India. UNHCR and the international community continue to advocate for 

these governments to make policy changes relating to refugees, and to expand 

humanitarian protection and assistance space for refugees and other persons of 

concern.

Third-Country Resettlement

The United States continues to lead third country resettlement efforts in the 

region. Other resettlement countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, 

and the Nordic countries, resettle refugees referred by UNHCR. In FY 2013, the 

United States processed UNHCR-referred refugee cases in China, the Hong Kong

Special Administrative Region, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, 

Thailand, and Vietnam. 
34

FY 2013 U.S. Admissions 

We expect to admit up to 17,000 refugees from East Asia in FY 2013. This 

will include up to 8,000 Burmese ethnic minorities (mostly Karen, Karenni, and 

Kachin) living in camps along the Thai-Burma border, some 9,000 Burmese (of 

various ethnic minorities) in Malaysia, and a small number of urban refugees of 

various nationalities in the region. 

FY 2014 U.S. Resettlement Program 

We expect to admit up to 14,000 refugees from East Asia in FY 2014. This 

will include up to 5,000 Burmese ethnic minorities (mostly Karen and Karenni) 

living in camps along the Thai-Burma border, some 9,000 Burmese (of various 

ethnic minorities) in Malaysia, and a small number of urban refugees of various 

nationalities in the region. 

Proposed FY 2014 East Asia program to include arrivals from the following 

categories: 

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 3,000

Priority 2 Groups 10,800 

Priority 3 Family Reunification 200

Total Proposed Ceiling 14,000

EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

Europe continues to host large refugee populations, as well as other persons 

affected by conflict, who, over the last two decades, have been left in situations of 

protracted displacement – often in dire conditions. In its 2012-2013 Global 

Appeal, UNHCR reported that there were nearly 4.4 million asylum seekers, 

refugees, internally displaced persons, stateless individuals, or other persons “of 

concern” throughout Europe and Central Asia. Many had fled conflicts outside the 

region, such as in Afghanistan and Syria, but the estimates also include persons 

claiming persecution within Eurasia, including hundreds of thousands of refugees 

and IDPs in the Balkans.

With the 2012 accession of Bulgaria, Portugal and the Republic of Moldova 

to the 1954 and 1961 Statelessness Conventions, and Hungary’s decision to lift its 

reservations to the 1954 Convention, 36 of the 49 States in Europe are now party to 

the 1954 Convention. Twenty-four are party to the 1961 Convention. All 
35

countries of the Russian Federation and Central Asia except Uzbekistan have 

acceded to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 

Protocol. However, compliance with these instruments remains problematic. 

Despite sustained efforts by UNHCR and other stakeholders to build protection 

capacity and help strengthen asylum systems and protection laws in the region, 

results have been modest, thus far. Many of these countries have been slow or 

reluctant to recognize and integrate refugees and other at-risk individuals. The 

protection provided by some regional governments to refugees, asylum seekers, 

and other migrants is limited and public intolerance, including attacks against nonSlavic foreigners, is common. There are documented cases of refoulement. 

UNHCR has been working with many of these governments to establish and/or 

reform asylum procedures and refugee protection laws. 

The 1990’s break-up of the Soviet Union also created newly independent 

states with sizeable populations of stateless individuals due to gaps in nationality 

laws and inconsistent implementation of those laws. Difficulty in establishing 

citizenship at the time of succession has also created later problems for children 

born to an undocumented parent(s). The problem of statelessness remains in the 

region, although some states, such as Turkmenistan, have taken steps to register 

stateless individuals and facilitate their acquisition of nationality. 

According to UNHCR, at the end of 2012, there were approximately 

440,000 refugees and IDPs in the Balkans, almost all of whom have been displaced 

for a decade or longer. An estimated 210,000 persons of this population are 

displaced from Kosovo, most of whom are currently living in Serbia. It is 

estimated that 97,000 individuals in this group are in need of assistance. Since 

2000, the overall level of return to Kosovo from Serbia has been low. There have 

been over 23,000 voluntary returns of minorities to Kosovo since the conflict

ended. Housing, documentation issues, a lack of employment opportunity, and 

occasional violence directed against ethnic Serbs in Kosovo has limited return 

prospects. 

From 2010 to 2012, the countries of the region – with the assistance of the 

international community – made significant progress toward resolving a large part 

of the refugee situation in the Balkans. A November 2011 ministerial meeting in 

Belgrade brought together Ministers of Foreign Affairs from Serbia, Croatia, 

Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro to sign a Joint Declaration expressing 

their collective will to resolve the protracted refugee and displacement situation, 

and they committed their countries to a Regional Housing Program (RHP) for 

refugees and IDPs supported by international donors. The RHP was designed to 

create durable solutions for 74,000 of the most vulnerable refugees in those 

countries. While principally affecting housing, the RHP has established the 

Regional Coordination Forum to discuss other pertinent issues such as pensions, 
36

civil documentation, exchange of data and other public information. A donors’ 

conference in April 2012 succeeded in raising over $340 million (€260 million) in 

international funds to support the RHP over five years. The United States provided 

$10 million in FY 2012, and U.S. involvement is seen as a critical ingredient to the 

RHP’s success. 

Religious Freedom

The status of religious freedom varies widely across Europe and Central 

Asia. Among the various states in this region, some mandate the registration of 

religious groups. Nontraditional religious groups are sometimes labeled as “sects” 

or “cults” by their home governments and may be subject to special scrutiny and 

limited privileges. Registration typically carries the right to rent or own property, 

hold religious services, appoint military and prison chaplains, and receive state 

subsidies. Restitution of religious properties is an issue yet to be fully resolved. 

Uzbekistan is designated by the Department of State as a CPC under the 

International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for systematic, ongoing, and 

egregious violations of religious freedom. 

Manifestations of anti-Semitism continue throughout the region, including 

demonstrations by extremist groups, physical and verbal assaults, and vandalism of 

cemeteries, synagogues, and monuments; in several countries, openly anti-Semitic 

political parties have gained seats in parliament. Government officials and elected 

members of parliaments have also been responsible for anti-Semitic statements and 

acts. While most incidents have taken place in former communist bloc countries, a 

number of western European countries have faced a disturbing increase in antiSemitism, in addition to anti-Muslim sentiment.

The Russian government uses its anti-extremism law to justify raids, arrests, 

and bans on religious literature of peaceful, “non-traditional” minority religious 

groups, including readers of Muslim theologian Said Nursi, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 

Scientologists, Falun Gong practitioners, and some Protestant groups. 

In Turkey, some religious minority communities face difficulties owning 

property, registering places of worship, training clergy, and obtaining visas for 

religious workers. Conscientious objectors on the basis of their faith are 

sometimes arrested and prosecuted for failing to comply with laws mandating 

military service, as previously witnessed in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Turkey, 

and Turkmenistan. 
37

Muslims across Europe and Central Asia have sometimes been viewed as

potential threats and accused of membership in internationally banned groups. In 

some countries, there are legal restrictions or prohibitions on the wearing of 

religious attire in schools and in public. 

Restrictions on religious freedom in Central Asia are often justified in the 

name of maintaining stability and combating terrorism. Some governments believe 

that religious freedom will result in competing centers of power and influence or 

open the door to violent extremism, although research shows that government 

suppression often results in increased violence and loss of regime legitimacy. 

Non-violent, non-extremist religious minorities such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses 

and Nursi readers, are often targets, as well as majorities from dominant religions 

that may include new streams of belief. 

Since 1989, the USRAP has offered resettlement consideration to 

individuals from certain religious minorities in the nations that made up the former 

Soviet Union who also have close family ties to the United States. Under the 

Lautenberg Amendment, Jews, Evangelical Christians, and certain members of the 

Ukrainian Catholic or Ukrainian Orthodox Churches are considered under a 

reduced evidentiary standard when being considered for refugee status. In recent 

years, fewer new applications and low approval rates have resulted in fewer 

departures to the United States. Individuals of all nationalities throughout the 

region may be referred for Priority 1 processing.

Voluntary Repatriation

The international community continues to support efforts to create favorable 

conditions for the return of ethnic minorities to their homes in the Balkans. In June 

2006, Serbian, Kosovo, and UN authorities signed the Protocol on Voluntary and 

Sustainable Return to Kosovo, which sought to improve the conditions for return 

by focusing on three elements: ensuring the safety of returnees, returning property 

to the displaced and rebuilding their houses, and creating an overall environment 

that sustains returns. There is still much work to be done in ensuring that those 

hoping to return have all the means to do so. PRM supported the return process 

through a grant to Mercy Corps in FY 2012 that promoted sustainable return 

through shelter repair, income-generation activities including vocational training 

and the provision of agricultural inputs, as well as programming to facilitate interethnic dialogue. International funding continues to facilitate and sustain the return 

and reintegration of displaced minorities from Kosovo. The Regional Housing 

program will allow thousands of returns to take place in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia 

and Herzegovina, and Montenegro. The program will encourage both voluntary 

repatriation and local integration as durable solutions. 
38

Local Integration

UNHCR has led efforts to create viable asylum systems and effective legal 

protections for refugees in the Balkans, the Russian Federation, the South 

Caucasus and Central Asia. However, ineffective implementation of these laws, 

combined with the history of national animosities and xenophobia throughout the 

region, often makes effective local integration difficult for ethnic minority 

refugees. In Azerbaijan, a majority of refugees lack legal status, despite being 

recognized by UNHCR and permitted by the government to stay in the country. 

As such, refugees do not have access to legal employment, making local 

integration in Azerbaijan extremely difficult. In Russia, difficulties in acquiring 

citizenship remain for some former Soviet citizens who resided in Russia before 

1992 and are, under Russian law, entitled to Russian citizenship. Groups such as 

the Meskhetian Turks have been unable to obtain Russian citizenship and thus 

remain de facto stateless. In Russia, UNHCR focuses on quality-assurance 

measures to strengthen the national asylum system, including access to the asylum 

system at borders, and to contribute to the Government’s plans to bring its 

reception infrastructure and processes up to full international standards. In 

Montenegro, the path to citizenship has been particularly slow for those displaced 

from Kosovo. The Regional Housing Program should provide an easier path to 

local integration for some of the most vulnerable, including Roma populations, 

among this group. The Government of Serbia is implementing integration 

programs for some displaced persons from Kosovo.

Third-Country Resettlement 

The United States continues to accept refugees from the region, almost 

exclusively religious minorities from Russia and Eurasia processed under the 

Lautenberg Amendment. Jewish immigration to Israel from the region continues

under the United Israel Appeal Program. 

FY 2013 U.S. Admissions

In FY 2013 we estimate fewer than 1,000 admissions from Europe and 

Central Asia. Religious minorities processed under the Lautenberg Amendment 

from countries of the former Soviet Union constitute nearly the entire caseload. 

During FY 2012, applicants were processed in Almaty, Baku, Bishkek, Chisinau, 

Kyiv, Valletta, Minsk, Tbilisi, Moscow, Timisoara, and Tashkent.
39

FY 2014 U.S. Resettlement Program

The proposed FY 2014 ceiling for refugees from Europe and Central Asia is 

1,000 individuals. Priority 2 includes individuals who will be processed under 

Lautenberg guidelines in the states of the former Soviet Union. Low approval 

rates for this Priority 2 program and a reduced rate of new applications serve to 

limit the number of admissions.

Proposed FY 2013 Europe and Central Asia program to include arrivals from 

the following categories: 

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 0

Priority 2 Groups 1,000 

Priority 3 Family Reunification 0

Total Proposed Ceiling 1,000

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

At the end of 2012, the number of refugees, asylum seekers, IDPs, and other 

people of concern in Latin America and the Caribbean totaled over 5 million. The 

ongoing conflict in Colombia generated the largest numbers of refugees and IDPs 

in the region. Estimates of the number of IDPs in Colombia vary between 4.8 

million (government figure) and 5.4 million (NGO figure). Expanded state 

presence and improved security in cities and towns throughout Colombia led to a 

decline in internal displacement in 2009 and 2010. However, displacement 

increased in 2011 as a result of confrontations between the Government of 

Colombia (GOC) and illegal armed groups, including the Revolutionary Armed 

Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN), criminal gangs 

(BACRIM) and criminal narco-trafficking networks. The GOC registered 66,634 

IDPs in 2012 and expects this figure to increase as declarations continue to be filed 

and the backlog is addressed. According to UNHCR, it is likely that displacement 

will continue to grow. In surrounding countries, including Ecuador, Venezuela, 

Costa Rica, and Panama, there are some 400,000 Colombian asylum seekers, 

refugees, and persons in refugee-like situations. 

The number of Colombian asylum seekers, refugees, and persons of concern 

in neighboring countries continues to rise. Ecuador has the highest number of 

recognized Colombian refugees and asylum seekers in Latin America. The 

Government of Ecuador (GOE) has recognized around 56,000 as refugees and 
40

reports that 14,567 are pending refugee status determination (RSD) by the GOE, 

although UNHCR estimates that the actual figure is nearly triple that. The asylum 

process in Ecuador is slow and difficult to access, and the refugee approval rate is 

around seven percent. In May 2012, the GOE issued Presidential Decree 1182, 

which limited the amount of time that asylum seekers have to file a claim to 15 

days, in addition to the pre-admissibility step to the RSD process, which has 

created additional delays. Asylum seekers pending RSD can wait up to a year for 

a decision, and now have the right to work in the interim. UNHCR participates in 

the asylum process but has highlighted a deteriorating protection environment in 

Ecuador for refugees, citing delays in registration and revocations of refugee 

status, labor exploitation, a more active presence of illegal armed groups and 

criminal gangs, forced recruitment of minors, and increasing xenophobia and 

discrimination. Other countries in the region, such as Costa Rica, Venezuela, the 

Dominican Republic, and Panama, also have established asylum procedures, but 

the registration and determination procedures are often implemented ineffectively. 

UNHCR is working with these countries, including Ecuador, to improve their 

asylum processes.

In Panama, there are approximately 1,500 recognized refugees (mainly 

Colombians). In 2011, the Government of Panama passed Law 356 granting over 

900 Colombians living in the Darien Province under Temporary Humanitarian 

Protection (PTH in Spanish) status the ability to apply for permanent residency and 

work permits. The process of applying for permanent residency has been slow, 

however, and no residency requests have yet been granted to PTH holders. In 

Costa Rica, there are approximately 13,000 recognized refugees. Under a new 

migration law, Costa Rica re-established its Refugee Department in March 2010, 

along with a Migration Tribunal. Decisions in asylum cases in Costa Rica can take 

up to a year. There are approximately 4,000 recognized refugees in Venezuela, 

and UNHCR estimates there are another 200,000 persons living in a refugee-like 

situation in the country. In Brazil, there are over 4,000 recognized refugees from 

75 different countries; the largest numbers are from Angola and Colombia.

Religious Freedom

In Latin America and the Caribbean, religious freedom is widely recognized 

and supported by government and society, though there are cases of religious 

intolerance. In some isolated instances, Christian groups, mainly Evangelicals, 

Protestants, and Mormons have reported impediments or complications to their 

practice of religion, establishment of religious institutions, and importation of 

religious materials. In some areas, there is harassment of Muslims, anti-Muslim 

cartoons and speech, and marginalization of Afro and indigenous religions. In 

Cuba, significant government restrictions remain in place. 
41

Although the constitution protects religious freedom, the Government of 

Cuba continued to control most aspects of religious life, including interference in 

church affairs, surveillance of religious institutions, harassment of outspoken 

church leaders, and assault of worshipers. The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program 

in Havana offers Cubans who have been persecuted on a number of grounds, 

including their religious beliefs, the opportunity for permanent resettlement in the 

United States. However, the Government of Cuba declined to provide the 

necessary exit visas to some individuals. We will monitor the implementation of 

the January 2013 abolition of the exit permit requirement to see if these individuals 

are still prevented from traveling. 

Manifestations of anti-Semitism that occurred throughout the hemisphere at 

times appeared correlated to the unfolding transitions to democracy in other parts 

of the world. In Venezuela, anti-Semitism is a growing concern, including 

instances of anti-Semitism in the government-controlled media. 

Voluntary Repatriation

Given the threats and violence in Colombia from illegal armed groups (nonstate actors) and the lack of state presence to provide full protection in some areas, 

UNHCR does not actively promote repatriation of Colombian refugees.

Local Integration 

The Governments of Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Venezuela have 

maintained policies that theoretically allow Colombians in need of protection to 

obtain asylum and integrate locally, although the processes involved are usually 

slow and cumbersome. The governments' capacity to review applications and 

confer refugee status remains limited. Even registered refugees with the right to 

work in these countries struggle to find stable employment or income 

opportunities, competing with the large number of poor in host communities. 

Colombians seeking international protection face rising levels of discrimination 

and xenophobia, and the ability to locally integrate in some areas is becoming 

more difficult. Furthermore, refugees do not live in camps, but rather the large 

majority live in urban areas. Some Colombian persons of concern (including 

refugees and asylum seekers) in Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Venezuela continue to 

experience harassment by persons associated with armed Colombian groups 

operating in these countries. In recent years, the refugee status determination 

process in Costa Rica has shown some improvement, but delays in recognition and 

documentation still exist. For asylum seekers in Panama, the situation is 

complicated, as the government continues to be reluctant to receive Colombian 
42

refugees or confer even minimal protection. Security remains a major concern for 

the Government of Panama, and Panamanians often equate refugees with drug 

trafficking and crime. 

The Department of State is currently supporting UNHCR’s efforts to assist 

the Dominican Republic and other Caribbean countries in developing systems for 

conducting refugee status determinations for asylum seekers, including Haitians.

The opening of a UNHCR office in the Dominican Republic in 2010 and the 

agency’s continued presence in Haiti have contributed greatly to its ability to 

address the protection needs of refugees, asylum-seekers, and displaced and 

stateless persons in mixed migration flows throughout the region. In FY2013, 

UNHCR undertook a refugee mapping initiative through which the organization 

captured registration information for 144 refugee households and 203 asylumseeker households. Despite past delays, the Dominican Republic’s refugee

eligibility committee (CONARE) met in June 2012. Prior to this meeting, the 

CONARE had not made a decision on an asylum claim since 2005, and had not 

made more than 20 decisions since UNHCR handed over responsibility for refugee 

status determinations to the government in 1997.

Third and In-Country Resettlement 

In the past, local integration had been the solution best suited to regional 

refugee problems in Latin America. In recent years, however, third-country 

resettlement has become an important alternative for those who face physical risks 

and have urgent protection needs. Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark, 

Norway, and the United States offer resettlement to at-risk Colombian refugees. 

Currently, the United States accepts referrals from UNHCR and embassies in the 

region and processes these cases principally in Ecuador and Costa Rica, with 

occasional cases in other countries throughout the region. Under the “Solidarity 

Resettlement Program,” a component of the Mexico Plan of Action which sought 

regional solutions to the Colombian refugee issue, countries in the region including 

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay are working with UNHCR to resettle a 

modest number of Colombian refugees. As noted earlier, the Department of State 

is providing technical support to bolster Uruguay’s resettlement program. The 

United States also facilitates the resettlement to third countries of persons 

interdicted by the U.S. Coast Guard or who enter Guantanamo Naval Station 

directly and are found by DHS/USCIS to have a well-founded fear of persecution 

or to be more likely than not to face torture if repatriated to their country of origin.

From 1996 to date, approximately 400 such protected persons have been resettled 

to 20 countries worldwide.
43

The U.S. Government continues to operate an in-country refugee 

resettlement program in Cuba. We have taken steps to ensure that all Cubans 

eligible for consideration have access to the program and that approved refugees 

travel as soon as possible. The number of persons seeking refugee resettlement 

remains high and there is a substantial backlog of cases pending review, an 

unknown number of which are likely ineligible for the program. Additional 

resources are being applied to address the backlogged cases, and we expect the 

backlog will continue to decrease by the end of FY2013. Recent upgrades to the 

Refugee Annex have been completed, thus allowing the Mission to expand the 

Cultural Orientation program for approved applicants. Unfortunately, the Cuban 

Government interferes with USRAP’s communications with some individuals, 

causing delays, misunderstandings, or misinformation. Some approved refugees 

do not have sufficient funds to pay for the medical exams and passports needed to 

depart Cuba. Although the exit permit requirement was abolished on January 14, 

2013, the Cuban government continues to prevent certain Cuban citizens from 

traveling.

Cubans currently eligible to apply for admission to the United States through 

the in-country program include the following:

1. Former political prisoners;

2. Members of persecuted religious minorities;

3. Human rights activists;

4. Forced labor conscripts (1965-68); 

5. Persons deprived of their professional credentials or subjected to other 

disproportionately harsh or discriminatory treatment resulting from their 

perceived or actual political or religious beliefs; and

6. Persons who have experienced or fear harm because of their relationship 

– family or social – to someone who falls under one of the preceding 

categories.

FY 2013 U.S. Admissions

We anticipate admitting close to 4,500 refugees from Latin America and the 

Caribbean during FY 2013. Cubans compose the overwhelming majority of 

refugees resettled from the region. Historically, most Cuban admissions were 

former political prisoners and forced labor conscripts. The program was expanded 

in 1991 to include human rights activists, displaced professionals, and others with 

claims of persecution, which currently compose the majority of admissions. We

expect over 100 Colombian refugees to be admitted to the United States during FY 

2013.
44

FY 2014 U.S. Resettlement Program

The proposed 5,000 ceiling for Latin America and the Caribbean for FY 

2014 comprises Cuban refugees eligible for the in-country Priority 2 program; a 

small number of UNHCR-referred Priority 1 Colombians; as well as a small 

number of Priority 3 family reunification cases.

Proposed FY 2014 Latin America program to include arrivals from the following 

categories: 

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 400

Priority 2 (In-Country Cubans) 4,550

Priority 3 Family Reunification 50

Total Proposed Ceiling 5,000

NEAR EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

The Near East/South Asia region remains host to millions of refugees, 

primarily Iraqis, Palestinians, Afghans, Iranians, Tibetans, Sri Lankans, Bhutanese, 

and now Syrians. Few countries in the region are party to the 1951 Convention 

relating to the Status of Refugees and/or its 1967 Protocol. Nonetheless, many 

host governments tolerate the presence of refugees within their borders.

UNHCR, the International Committee of the Red Cross, IOM, the World 

Food Program, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine 

Refugees in the Near East, and other humanitarian organizations work with 

refugees in the region. Some countries have provided long-term protection and/or 

asylum, mainly to Tibetans, Bhutanese, Sri Lankans, Palestinians, Afghans, 

Somalis, and a handful of other nationalities. Refugees identified by UNHCR for 

third-country resettlement include Iraqis in Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, 

Yemen, and the Gulf States; Bhutanese in Nepal; Afghans in Pakistan, Iran, 

Turkey, Syria, and India; and Iranians in Turkey. In 2013, UNHCR also referred a 

small number of particularly vulnerable Syrian refugee cases residing in 

neighboring countries. 

As of early 2013, 126,362 Iraqi refugees were registered with UNHCR. 

There is no internationally agreed-upon definitive number of Iraqi refugees and 

internally displaced persons due to the fact that not all are registered with UNHCR 

and they are dispersed throughout the region. UNHCR reports that approximately 
45

1.2 million Iraqis displaced by sectarian violence following the Samarra Mosque 

bombing of February 2006 remain internally displaced. There are nearly 147,500 

Syrian refugees in Iraq, as well as approximately 36,000 refugees and 6,500 

asylum seekers of other origins (including Palestinians and Iranian Kurds).

Intense fighting in Syria has caused massive displacement, both internally 

and to neighboring countries. As of May 15, 2013, there were over 1.5 million 

Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt. The United States 

government is providing assistance to displaced Syrians throughout the region 

through support to international organizations, such as UNHCR, UNICEF, IOM, 

ICRC, and WFP, as well as through non-governmental organizations, which are 

providing critical assistance such as water and sanitation, shelter, and medical care. 

As of June 17, the United States government had provided more than $800 million 

in critical humanitarian assistance.

Despite the voluntary repatriation of over 5.7 million Afghan refugees since 

2002, Pakistan and Iran continue to host, respectively, approximately 1.6 million 

and 800,000 registered Afghans, many of whom have resided in these countries for 

decades. The maintenance of asylum and protection space for those refugees who 

cannot yet return to Afghanistan while continuing to support voluntary repatriation, 

is a top priority for the U.S. Government and for UNHCR. In addition to Afghan 

refugees, some 2-3 million Afghans are believed to live and work in Pakistan and 

Iran as economic migrants without documentation. Over 10,000 Afghan refugees 

and asylum seekers are also registered with UNHCR in India. Identifying durable 

solutions remains an important component of UNHCR’s strategy in India. Local 

integration remains a difficult option due to opposition from host countries such as 

Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, and India.

Thousands of ethnic Nepalis in Bhutan were forced out of Bhutan in the 

early 1990s as a result of the Bhutanese government’s policy of “one nation and 

one people” (also referred to as “Bhutanization”). Despite 17 rounds of formal 

negotiations between Bhutan and Nepal, and pressure from the United States and 

other governments to resolve the issue and secure the right of return for genuine 

Bhutanese nationals, particularly humanitarian cases, to date none have been 

permitted to return. Due to concerted resettlement efforts commenced in late 2007 

by the United States and other resettlement countries, approximately 80,000 of the 

original population of 108,000 Bhutanese refugees in Nepal have departed after 

spending two decades in camps in eastern Nepal.
46

Religious Freedom 

Persecution of religious groups is common in many countries in the Middle 

East and South Asia that are countries of origin for refugee populations entering 

the United States. State and local government responses to violence against 

members of religious groups, particularly Muslims and Christians, are often 

inadequate. Although many of these countries do not have Jewish populations,

anti-Semitism is prevalent, and often espoused by governments or religious 

leaders, especially in Iran.

In Afghanistan, religious freedom is limited due to constitutional 

contradictions, legislative ambiguity, and interpretations of Islamic law that punish 

apostasy and blasphemy.

In Pakistan, the penal code includes blasphemy laws that carry punishments 

ranging from imprisonment to the death penalty. Frequent abuses of these laws 

negatively affect religious minorities, both Muslims and non-Muslims. In early 

2011, two Pakistani senior government officials were killed after speaking out 

against the application of the blasphemy laws against minorities and others remain 

under threat from violent extremists.

In Sri Lanka, religious tensions continue to be a problem, and Muslim, 

Hindu, and Buddhist communities often distrust one another. Incidents such as 

sporadic attacks against the Christian community and the destruction of a Muslim 

shrine by Buddhist monks in late 2011 exacerbate such tensions. 

In Bhutan, Buddhism is the state’s “spiritual heritage,” although in the 

southern areas many citizens openly practice Hinduism. While subtle pressure on 

non-Buddhists to observe the traditional Buddhist values and some limitations on 

constructing non-Buddhist religious buildings remain, the government has taken 

steps to improve religious freedom in the country. Some societal pressures toward 

non-Buddhists are reflected in official and unofficial efforts to uphold the “spiritual 

heritage” (Buddhism) of the country.

In Iran, religious groups, including Sunni Muslims, Bahai’s, Sufis, Jews, 

Zoroastrians, and Christians, continue to face official discrimination, harassment, 

and arrest. Members of the Shia community who express religious views different 

from those of the government are also subject to harassment and intimidation. The 

government continues to increase convictions and executions of dissidents, 

political reformists, and peaceful protesters on the charge of moharebeh (enmity 

against God) and anti-Islamic propaganda.
47

Increasing sectarian violence impacts all of Iraq’s religious communities, 

especially the Shia Muslim population. Iraq’s minority communities, including 

Christians, Yezidis, Sabean-Mandaeans, and others, have experienced wide-scale 

displacement. Some 20 percent of registered Iraqi refugees are members of 

religious minorities, a figure appreciably larger than their percentage of the overall 

Iraqi population. As a result, some of these religious communities, along with 

their ancient languages and customs, are on the verge of disappearing.

In Syria, the government increased its targeting and surveillance of members 

of faith groups it deemed a “threat,” including members of the country’s Sunni 

majority and outlawed Jehovah’s Witnesses. This occurred concurrently with the 

escalation of violent extremist activity as the current civil conflict continues. There 

were credible reports that the regime targeted citizens based on religious affiliation 

in mixed neighborhoods in Homs and rural Aleppo. Extrajudicial punishments 

were common.

In Egypt, the government generally failed to prevent, investigate, or 

prosecute crimes against members of religious minority groups, especially Coptic 

Christians – including the recent attack at the Cathedral of St. Mark, the seat of the 

Coptic Orthodox Pope. This fostered a culture of impunity. Christians, Shiites, 

Baha’is, and other minorities faced personal and collective discrimination, 

especially in government employment and the ability to build, renovate, and repair 

places of worship. The government routinely failed to condemn and sometimes 

contributed to incendiary speech, including anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and antiShia speech.

In some countries in the region, most notably Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi 

Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt, blasphemy, apostasy, and defamation of religion laws 

are used to restrict religious liberty, constrain the rights of religious minorities, and 

limit freedom of expression and those accused face threats of violence. Under 

these governments’ interpretations of Islamic law, individuals have their civil 

rights infringed upon if any member of society files a complaint against them. In 

most countries in the region Sharia courts decide personal status cases. In Iran, 

judges in these courts often rule against converts and members of minority 

religious groups by annulling marriages, transferring child custody, conveying

property rights to Muslim family members, infringing upon the civil rights of these 

individuals, and declaring them wards of the state without any religious identity. 

Iran and Saudi Arabia are designated by the Department of State as CPCs under 

the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for systematic, ongoing, and 

egregious violations of religious freedom. 
48

The USRAP provides resettlement access in various ways to refugees who 

suffer religious persecution. Under the Specter Amendment, Iranian religious 

minorities designated as Priority 2 category members are considered under a 

reduced evidentiary standard for establishing a well-founded fear of persecution. 

Iranian refugees have also gained access to the program through Priority 3. In 

addition, the USRAP accepts UNHCR and embassy referrals of religious 

minorities of various nationalities in the region. Nationals of any country, 

including CPCs, may be referred to the U.S. program by UNHCR or a U.S. 

embassy for reasons of religious persecution.

Voluntary Repatriation

After the fall of the Taliban, voluntary repatriation to Afghanistan proceeded 

on a massive scale for several years, both with and without UNHCR assistance. 

Since 2002, over 5.7 million Afghan refugees have returned, mostly from Pakistan 

and Iran. Over 4.6 million were assisted by UNHCR in the largest repatriation 

operation in UNHCR’s history. However, the era of mass returns has largely 

ended, with about 94,000 returning in 2012. The substantial repatriation represents 

roughly a 20 percent increase in Afghanistan’s total population and has taxed the 

country’s capacity to absorb additional refugee returns.

It is unlikely that all of the remaining 2.6 million registered Afghans in 

Pakistan and Iran will repatriate. UNHCR and IOM’s assessment is that the 

continuing migration of Afghans in both directions across the AfghanistanPakistan border is part of a larger process of economic and social migration that 

has been occurring for centuries. UNHCR is working with the Governments of 

Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran and the international community to develop 

policies and programs to sustain voluntary returns, while also better managing the 

residual Afghan population in Pakistan by working towards longer-term protection 

and migration solutions. IOM is seeking a greater role in border management and 

in developing regional mechanisms for economic migration that would bolster 

protection for Afghans. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is 

working to increase its capacity to help returnees fold back into Afghan economic 

and social structures and the same time ensuring continued protection for its 

citizens still seeking refuge abroad. UNHCR, together with the Governments of 

Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran agreed to a Solutions Strategy for Afghan Refugees 

to Support Voluntary Repatriation, Sustainable Reintegration and Assistance to 

Host Countries (SSAR) which provides for the orderly, voluntary return of Afghan 

refugees and emphasizes the need to fully reintegrate returned refugees into their 

communities. 
49

Stabilizing the displaced Afghan population – e.g., reintegrating returning 

refugees and IDPs into the Afghan society, preserving asylum space for refugees in 

neighboring countries – is critical to regional stability, as well as addressing 

irregular migration. Through a unique quadripartite consultative process, the 

Islamic Republics of Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan and UNHCR have agreed on 

a multi-year regional strategy, endorsed by the international community in May 

2012 to address assistance to Afghan refugees and returnees, emphasizing crossborder linkages. The Afghan government is also working on a national IDP policy 

which will seek to address protection, assistance, and durable solutions issues for 

displaced populations within its borders.

Since 2008, over one million IDPs and refugees have returned to their homes 

in Iraq, with IDPs composing 78% of these returns. About 86 percent of all returns 

have been to Baghdad and Diyala, a province northeast of Baghdad. This trend 

generally matches displacement patterns as over 80 percent of all IDPs and 70 

percent of all refugees were displaced from those locations. UNHCR is working 

with some Iraqis in neighboring countries on an individual basis to facilitate 

voluntary returns to Iraq. In 2012, nearly 85,000 Iraqi refugees, approximately 

56,500 of whom were living in Syria, returned to Iraq and registered for assistance 

through the Iraqi government or UNHCR. 

The United States continues to work with other interested governments in 

urging the Government of Bhutan to allow for the voluntary repatriation of 

Bhutanese refugees to Bhutan under acceptable terms and conditions. With the 

end of the conflict in Sri Lanka, approximately 6,000 refugees have returned. 

However, the number of Tamils seeking to return from India has decreased. So far 

in 2013, UNHCR assisted in the voluntary return of 245 Tamil refugees to Sri 

Lanka. 

Local Integration 

The SSAR also promotes enhancing support for refugee-hosting 

communities and providing some alternative stay arrangements for refugees in 

Afghanistan and Iran. While some progress is being made, few countries in the 

region offer local integration to refugees. In March 2010, the Government of 

Pakistan approved the Afghan Management Strategy for the years 2010-2012, 

which officially permitted Afghan Proof of Registration (POR) cardholders to 

remain in Pakistan through December 2012. This was subsequently extended to 

June 30, 2013, deferring the decision until after the May 2013 parliamentary 

elections. As of late May 2013, Pakistan is formulating its policy for Afghan 

refugees beyond 2013. As part of the Pakistan implementation of the SSAR and in 

partnership with the Government of Pakistan and UN agencies, UNHCR launched 

the Refugee-Affected and Hosting Areas (RAHA) initiative in 2009. This program 
50

is widely regarded as a success in addressing Afghan refugee and Pakistani host 

community needs by rehabilitating areas that have been adversely affected by the 

presence of Afghan refugee communities over the past 30 years. The United States 

will continue to work with UNHCR and the Government of Pakistan, including 

under the SSAR and RAHA, to preserve asylum space and promote alternative stay 

arrangements. However, at present, local integration is not an available option for 

most of the remaining Afghan refugees. 

Syria hosted over 63,500 UNHCR-registered Iraqi refugees as of February 

28, 2013. Iraqis do not need a visa to enter Syria. They receive a stamp upon 

entry, which allows for six months of residence and should be renewed at the local 

government offices. Because of the continuing violence in Syria, many Iraqis have 

fled the country. The Government of Jordan (GOJ) requires visas for Iraqis and 

has instituted an additional visa category for Iraqis coming to Jordan since unrest 

broke out in Syria in 2011. Few Iraqis are receiving these visas, but UNHCR and 

other partners nevertheless report that there are hundreds of new Iraqi arrivals from 

Syria and Iraq each month. The GOJ continues to preserve first asylum and

protection space for Iraqi refugees and remains a generous host.

Iraqis in Syria and Jordan are not legally defined as refugees, but rather as 

guests. Both governments allow UNHCR to register Iraqis. With help from the 

international community, the Governments of Syria and Jordan have allowed Iraqi 

students to enroll in public schools. However, enrollments in both countries have 

been lower than anticipated. In both Syria and Jordan, Iraqi refugees have access 

to the public health care systems. Although the Government of Jordan has granted 

access to several legal labor sectors to Iraqis, few have obtained work permits as 

they are also required to obtain residency permits, which the GOJ is not issuing to 

Iraqis. Iraqis do not have access to the legal labor market in Syria.

The Government of Iraq has acknowledged that many Iraqi IDPs will not be 

able to return to their home communities, and instead require support integrating 

into their areas of displacement. UNHCR and other international partners are also 

seeking to support local integration as a viable option for IDPs, but they point out 

that, in addition to the integration grant, it will be important for displaced Iraqis to 

be able to access services in their areas of displacement.

While Turkey ratified the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and acceded to its 

1967 Protocol, the Turkish government acceded to the Protocol with a geographic 

limitation acknowledging refugees only from Europe. While most asylum seekers 

are thus not considered refugees under Turkish law, the Turkish government grants 

temporary refuge and temporary local integration possibilities to refugees 

recognized by UNHCR usually pending their referral to a potential resettlement 

country. As of March 22, 2013, there were 34,471 persons registered with 
51

UNHCR Turkey, the majority from Iraq (40%), Afghanistan (26%) and Iran 

(20%). In addition to the Syrian influx into Turkey over the past year, Turkey has 

also seen substantial, increased arrivals of Iraqis and Iranians. UNHCRrecognized refugees and asylum seekers in Turkey are assigned to one of 61 

satellite cities. Provincial governments are responsible for meeting their basic 

needs, including by providing access to employment, healthcare, and education 

although support varies from one location to another. On April 4, 2013, the 

Turkish Parliament passed the “Foreigners and International Protection Law,” 

which will regulate the entry, exit, and the stay of migrants in the country, along 

with the scope of international protection for those who seek asylum in Turkey.

Despite the increasing number of asylum seekers and refugees, India does 

not have a clear national policy for the treatment of refugees, and UNHCR has a 

limited mandate in the country. In New Delhi, urban refugees face difficult 

conditions, including discrimination and harassment by the local population, 

limiting their local integration prospects. India permits UNHCR to assist urban 

refugees in New Delhi, primarily Burmese, Afghans, and Somalis. India 

recognizes and aids certain groups, including Sri Lankan Tamils and Tibetans in 

the 112 camps for Sri Lankans and 39 settlements for Tibetans located throughout 

the country. The Government of India provides support and benefits to registered 

Tibetan and Sri Lankan refugees. It also grants work authorization to documented 

Tibetans. However, Sri Lankan refugees in India do not receive work 

authorization from the central government but are unofficially allowed to work on 

the informal economy. 

UNHCR has negotiated an agreement with the Government of India 

whereby India would facilitate access to citizenship for Hindu and Sikh Afghan 

refugees who meet the standard criteria to acquire Indian citizenship, while 

UNHCR would pursue resettlement opportunities for other long-staying ethnic 

Afghan refugees. Naturalization clinics were established to support the citizenship 

process for Hindu and Sikh Afghans, and UNHCR intensified its efforts to ensure 

that all eligible refugees had submitted applications for Indian citizenship by 

December 31, 2009. As a result, over 4,400 applications have been submitted and 

over 670 Afghans have naturalized.
52

Third-Country Resettlement

The USRAP anticipates the continued large-scale processing of Iraqis, 

Bhutanese, and, to a lesser extent, Iranians, during FY 2014. 

The United States recognizes that the possibility of third-country 

resettlement must be available to the most vulnerable Iraqi refugees, and has 

processing facilities in Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, and Istanbul. 

While most Iraqis gain access to the USRAP via a referral from UNHCR, we are 

also facilitating direct access to the USRAP for Iraqis with close U.S. affiliations in 

those processing locations where hosting governments permit. The passage of the 

Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act, enacted January 28, 2008, created new categories of 

Iraqis who are eligible for direct access (P-2) to the USRAP, both inside and 

outside Iraq. Currently, beneficiaries of P-2 categories who may seek access to the 

USRAP in Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq include: 

1. Iraqis who work/worked on a full-time basis as interpreters/translators for 

the U.S. Government, MNF-I in Iraq, or U.S. Forces-Iraq; 

2. Iraqis who are/were employed by the U.S. Government in Iraq; 

3. Iraqis who are/were employees of an organization or entity closely 

associated with the U.S. mission in Iraq that has received U.S. 

Government funding through an official and documented contract, award, 

grant or cooperative agreement;

4. Iraqis who are/were employed in Iraq by a U.S.-based media organization 

or non-governmental organization; 

5. Spouses, sons, daughters, parents, and siblings of individuals described in 

the four categories above, or of an individual eligible for a Special 

Immigrant Visa as a result of his/her employment by or on behalf of the 

U.S. Government in Iraq, including if the individual is no longer alive, 

provided that the relationship is verified; and

6. Iraqis who are the spouses, sons, daughters, parents, brothers, or sisters of 

a citizen of the United States, or who are the spouses or unmarried sons 

or daughters of a Permanent Resident Alien of the United States, as 

established by their being or becoming beneficiaries of approved familybased I-130 Immigrant Visa Petitions.

The United States has increased its in-country processing capacity nearly 

300 percent since establishing a Resettlement Support Center in Baghdad in FY 

2008 and looks to continue to expand that capacity in FY 2013 and FY 2014. 

Although security and logistical challenges associated with operating an RSC in 

Iraq limit in-country processing capacity, refugee admissions from Iraq are

exceeding those from neighboring countries. Refugee processing in Iraq is a high
53

priority for the United States as it directly benefits Iraqis associated with U.S. 

efforts in Iraq. DHS continues to devote substantial resources to Iraqi refugee 

processing and maintains a robust interview schedule in the region. 

Middle Eastern and South Asian refugees in most of Europe avail 

themselves of the asylum systems of the countries in which they are located. In 

Vienna, however, certain Iranian religious minorities (Baha’is, Zoroastrians, Jews, 

Mandaeans, and Christians) may be processed for U.S. resettlement using special 

procedures authorized by the Government of Austria. RSC Vienna has 

experienced a marked increase in new applications in FY 2011 and FY2012. The 

Lautenberg legislation expired in September 2012 and was subsequently reauthorized in March 2013, allowing new applications to be filed and adjudicated 

under Lautenberg guidelines. The United States also processes Iranian religious 

minorities (primarily Baha’i) and other Iranians in Turkey through special 

procedures involving fast-track refugee status determination and referral by 

UNHCR.

Resettlement processing for Bhutanese refugees in Nepal is continuing 

smoothly and the United States remains committed to considering for resettlement 

as many refugees as express interest. As of May 2013, UNHCR had referred over 

100,000 Bhutanese refugees for resettlement to eight countries and more than 

80,000 of these Bhutanese refugees have been resettled to these countries – most 

notably the United States – since late 2007. 

The United States has agreed to join an Australia-led effort to increase 

resettlement of Afghans from Pakistan, and we anticipate increased UNHCR 

referrals in coming years. UNHCR currently refers some 300 individuals per year 

from India, with priority given to those they deem most vulnerable. The majority 

of referrals are Burmese. UNHCR also refers a very limited number of refugees 

out of Sri Lanka, mostly Pakistanis. We continue to explore modalities for 

processing vulnerable Tibetan refugees in the region.

FY 2013 U.S. Admissions

We estimate the admission of approximately 32,000 refugees from the 

region in FY 2013. These will include some 9,500 Bhutanese, 19,000 Iraqis, 2,000 

Iranians and several hundred Afghans, including a small group of women who had 

been living in Iran processed through the UNHCR Emergency Transit Center in 

Slovakia. 
54

FY 2014 U.S. Resettlement Program

The proposed regional ceiling for refugees from the Near East and South 

Asia for FY 2014 is 35,000, including vulnerable Iraqis, Bhutanese, Iranians, 

Syrians, Pakistanis, and Afghans. We expect individual UNHCR referrals of 

various religious and ethnic groups in the region, including Assyrians, Mandeans, 

and Iranian Kurds. In addition, Ahmadi Muslims in many locations and Afghans 

in the former Soviet Union, Pakistan, India, and elsewhere will be included. Small 

numbers of Iraqi and other refugee groups who fled Libya are also scheduled for 

processing. We also expect UNHCR referrals of particularly vulnerable Syrian 

refugees residing in neighboring countries, given UNHCR’s mid-2013 decision 

that third-country resettlement will play a role in its response to the Syrian refugee 

crisis.

Proposed FY 2014 Near East/ South Asia program to include arrivals from the 

following categories: 

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 16,950

Priority 2 Groups 17,000

Priority 3 Family Reunification 50

Total Proposed Ceiling 34,000
55

DOMESTIC IMPACT OF REFUGEE ADMISSIONS

In FY 2012, the USRAP admitted 58,238 refugees from 56 countries. More 

than half were originally from either Bhutan or Burma. (See Table III.)

The demographic characteristics of refugee arrivals from the 20 largest 

source countries (representing 100 percent of total arrivals) in FY 2012 illustrate 

the variation among refugee groups. The median age of all FY 2012 arrivals was 

25 years and ranged from 19 years for arrivals from the Democratic Republic of 

Congo and Central African Republic to 34 years of age for arrivals from Cuba. In

FY 2012, 46.1 percent of all arriving refugees were female and 53.9 percent of all 

arriving refugees were male. Males predominated among refugees from Eritrea 

(78.9 percent), Sudan (64.3 percent), and Ethiopia (57.9 percent). (See Table IV.)

Of the total arrivals in FY 2012, some 8.9 percent were under the age of 

five, 23.5 percent were of school age, 68.1 percent were of working age, and 3.1 

percent were of retirement age. (See Table V.) Considerable variation among 

refugee groups can be seen among specific age categories. Refugees under the age 

of five ranged from a high of 16.2 percent among Central African Republic arrivals 

to a low of 3.4 percent of those from Iran. The number of school-aged children 

(from five to 17 years of age) varied from a high of over 45.6 percent of arrivals 

from the Central African Republic to a low of 10.2 percent of those from Eritrea. 

The number of working-aged refugees (16 to 64 years of age) varied from a high of 

86.5 percent of those from Eritrea to a low of 43.4 percent of individuals from the 

Central African Republic. Retirement-aged refugees (65 years or older) ranged 

from a high of 6.5 percent of arrivals from Cuba to a low of less than one percent 

of those from Burundi and Congo. 

During FY 2012, 63 percent of all arriving refugees resettled in 12 states. 

The majority were placed in Texas (10.2 percent), followed by California (8.9 

percent), Michigan (6.2 percent), New York (6.1 percent), Pennsylvania (4.8 

percent), and Georgia (4.3 percent). The states of Florida (3.8 percent), Ohio (3.8 

percent), Arizona (3.8 percent), Washington (3.7 percent), North Carolina (3.6 

percent), and Illinois (3.6 percent) also were in the top twelve states where 

refugees were resettled. (See Table VI.)
56

TABLE III

Refugee Arrivals By Country of Origin

Fiscal Year 2012

Country of Origin

Arrival 

Number % of Total

Afghanistan 481 0.83%

Bhutan 15,070 25.88%

Burma 14,160 24.31%

Burundi 186 0.32%

Cambodia 6 0.01%

Cameroon 7 0.01%

Central African Republic 136 0.23%

Chad 12 0.02%

China 45 0.08%

Colombia 126 0.22%

Congo 102 0.18%

Cuba 1,948 3.34%

Dem. Rep. Congo 1,863 3.20%

Egypt 13 0.02%

Eritrea 1,346 2.31%

Ethiopia 620 1.06%

Former Soviet Union* 1,129 1.94%

Gabon 1 0.00%

Gambia 2 0.00%

Gaza Strip 7 0.01%

India 2 0.00%

Iran 1,758 3.02%

Iraq 12,163 20.88%

Ivory Coast 33 0.06%

Jordan 3 0.01%

Kenya 23 0.04%

Korea, North 22 0.04%

Kuwait 3 0.01%

Laos 21 0.04%

Liberia 69 0.12%

Libya 5 0.01%
57

Morocco 2 0.00%

Nepal 47 0.08%

Niger 4 0.01%

Nigeria 2 0.00%

Pakistan 274 0.47%

Palestine 141 0.24%

Republic of South Sudan 1 0.00%

Rwanda 157 0.27%

Saudi Arabia 1 0.00%

Senegal 5 0.01%

Sierra Leone 1 0.00%

Somalia 4,911 8.43%

South Africa 1 0.00%

Sri Lanka (Ceylon) 55 0.09%

Sudan 1,077 1.85%

Syria 31 0.05%

Tanzania 2 0.00%

Thailand 3 0.01%

Tibet 9 0.02%

Togo 26 0.04%

Tunisia 1 0.00%

Uganda 18 0.03%

Venezuala 4 0.01%

Vietnam 100 0.17%

Zimbabwe 3 0.01%

TOTAL 58,238 100.00%

Source: Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Refugee Processing Center
58

TABLE IV

Median Age and Gender of Refugee Arrivals, Fiscal Year 2012

Rank

(# of 

Arrivals) Country of Origin

Refugees

Admitted

Median

Age

%

Females

%

Males

1 Bhutan 15,070 28 49.47% 50.53%

2 Burma 14,160 23 42.82% 57.18%

3 Iraq 12,163 28 47.34% 52.66%

4 Somalia 4,911 22 45.14% 54.86%

5 Cuba 1,948 34 49.54% 50.46%

6 Dem. Rep. Congo 1,863 19 52.23% 47.77%

7 Iran 1,758 32 47.38% 52.62%

8 Eritrea 1,346 26 21.10% 78.90%

9 Former Soviet Union* 1,129 27 51.55% 48.45%

10 Sudan 1,077 24 35.65% 64.35%

11 Ethiopia 620 26 42.10% 57.90%

12 Afghanistan 481 23 49.48% 50.52%

13 Pakistan 274 25 43.07% 56.93%

14 Burundi 186 20 51.08% 48.92%

15 Rwanda 157 23 47.13% 52.87%

16 Palestine 141 25 46.10% 53.90%

17 Central African Republic 136 19 51.47% 48.53%

18 Colombia 126 24 55.56% 44.44%

19 Congo 102 23 43.14% 56.86%

20 Vietnam 100 25 49.00% 51.00%

21 All Other Countries 490 27 47.14% 52.86%

TOTAL 58,238 25 46.07% 53.93%

Source: Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Refugee Processing Center
59

TABLE V

Select Age Categories of Refugee Arrivals, Fiscal Year 2012

Rank

(# of 

Arrivals) Country of Origin

Under 

5 Yrs

School 

Age 

(5-17)

Working 

Age

(16-64)

Retirement 

Age

(=or > 65)

1 Bhutan 7.17% 22.91% 70.19% 4.74%

2 Burma 12.36% 20.79% 68.71% 0.97%

3 Iraq 8.62% 22.87% 66.55% 4.71%

4 Somalia 9.81% 31.26% 61.90% 0.94%

5 Cuba 4.11% 20.89% 72.43% 6.52%

6 Dem. Rep. Congo 10.90% 41.12% 53.89% 0.48%

7 Iran 3.36% 13.03% 79.75% 5.69%

8 Eritrea 4.16% 10.25% 86.55% 0.22%

9 Former Soviet Union* 10.01% 27.99% 60.94% 5.58%

10 Sudan 9.47% 25.07% 68.80% 0.28%

11 Ethiopia 7.74% 20.81% 74.03% 0.81%

12 Afghanistan 5.41% 36.80% 63.20% 1.46%

13 Pakistan 9.12% 23.72% 66.79% 1.46%

14 Burundi 12.37% 42.47% 52.15% 0.00%

15 Rwanda 5.73% 40.76% 58.60% 0.64%

16 Palestine 13.48% 24.82% 61.70% 3.55%

17 Central African Republic 16.18% 45.59% 43.38% 1.47%

18 Colombia 9.52% 35.71% 57.94% 3.17%

19 Congo 5.88% 35.29% 65.69% 0.00%

20 Vietnam 6.00% 36.00% 62.00% 2.00%

21 All Other Countries 7.35% 25.71% 69.80% 2.24%

TOTAL 8.94% 23.51% 68.13% 3.12%

NOTE: Totals may exceed 100 percent due to overlapping age categories.

Source: Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Refugee Processing Center
60

TABLE VI

Refugee Arrivals By State of Initial Resettlement, Fiscal Year 2012

STATE

Refugee 

Arrivals

Amerasian 

Arrivals

Total

Arrivals

% of 

Total Arrivals 

to U.S.

Alabama 145 0 145 0.25%

Alaska 88 0 88 0.15%

Arizona 2,234 0 2,234 3.84%

Arkansas 10 0 10 0.02%

California 5,167 6 5,173 8.88%

Colorado 1,458 0 1,458 2.50%

Connecticut 434 0 434 0.75%

District of Columbia 14 0 14 0.02%

Florida 2,244 0 2,244 3.85%

Georgia 2,516 4 2,520 4.33%

Hawaii 1 0 1 0.00%

Idaho 817 0 817 1.40%

Illinois 2,082 0 2,082 3.57%

Indiana 1,197 0 1,197 2.06%

Iowa 426 5 431 0.74%

Kansas 384 0 384 0.66%

Kentucky 1,452 0 1,452 2.49%

Louisiana 187 0 187 0.32%

Maine 203 0 203 0.35%

Maryland 1,239 0 1,239 2.13%

Massachusetts 1,537 4 1,541 2.65%

Michigan 3,594 0 3,594 6.17%

Minnesota 1,738 0 1,738 2.98%

Mississippi 8 0 8 0.01%

Missouri 1,065 0 1,065 1.83%

Montana 1 0 1 0.00%

Nebraska 764 0 764 1.31%

Nevada 470 0 470 0.81%

New Hampshire 363 0 363 0.62%

New Jersey 279 0 279 0.48%

New Mexico 189 0 189 0.32%
61

STATE

Refugee 

Arrivals

Amerasian 

Arrivals

Total

Arrivals 

% of 

Total Arrivals 

to U.S.

New York 3,525 3 3,528 6.06%

North Carolina 2,099 11 2,110 3.62%

North Dakota 555 0 555 0.95%

Ohio 2,245 0 2,245 3.85%

Oklahoma 299 0 299 0.51%

Oregon 691 4 695 1.19%

Pennsylvania 2,809 0 2,809 4.82%

Rhode Island 130 0 130 0.22%

South Carolina 135 0 135 0.23%

South Dakota 646 0 646 1.11%

Tennessee 1,236 0 1,236 2.12%

Texas 5,905 18 5,923 10.17%

Utah 942 0 942 1.62%

Vermont 350 0 350 0.60%

Virginia 1,341 0 1,341 2.30%

Washington 2,165 0 2,165 3.72%

West Virginia 19 0 19 0.03%

Wisconsin 781 4 785 1.35%

Total 58,179 59 58,238 100.00%

Note: Arrival figures do not reflect secondary migration.

Source: Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Refugee Processing Center
62

TABLE VII

ESTIMATED AVAILABLE FUNDING FOR REFUGEE PROCESSING, MOVEMENT, AND 

RESETTLEMENT

FY 2013 AND FY 2014 ($ MILLIONS)

AGENCY

ESTIMATED

FY 2013

(BY DEPARTMENT)

ESTIMATED 

FY 2014

(BY DEPARTMENT)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

 Refugee Processing 1

 $26.3 $32.3

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

 Refugee Admissions 2, 3

$468.0 $415.0

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families,

Office of Refugee Resettlement

 Refugee Resettlement 4

 $623.3 $618.8

TOTAL $1,117.6 $1,066.1

The estimated FY 2014 figures above reflect the President’s FY 2014 Budget request and do not 

include carryover funds from FY 2013.

1

FY 2014: Includes cost factors to reflect Headquarters facilities rent related to the refugee 

resettlement program, projected staffing enhancements, and following-to-join refugee 

processing, in addition to certain ICASS costs.

2

FY 2013: Includes FY 2013 MRA appropriation of $310 million, $93.9 million in PRM 

carryover from FY 2012, $58.1 million projected IOM loan collections/carryover, and an 

estimate of $6 million in prior year MRA recoveries. A portion of these funds will be carried 

forward into FY 2014.

3 FY 2014: Includes FY 2014 MRA budget request of $362 million, $47 million in projected 

IOM loan collections/carryover, and an estimate of $6 million in prior year MRA recoveries. 

Funds carried forward from FY 2013 will also be available in FY 2014. 

4

FY 2013 and FY 2014: HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement’s (ORR) refugee benefits and 

services are also provided to asylees, Cuban and Haitian entrants, certain Amerasians from 

Vietnam, victims of a severe form of trafficking who have received certification or eligibility 

letters from ORR, and certain family members who are accompanying or following to join 

victims of severe forms of trafficking, and some victims of torture, as well as Iraqi and Afghan 

Special Immigrants and their spouses and unmarried children under the age of 21. None of these 

additional groups is included in the refugee admissions ceiling except Amerasians. This 

category does not include costs associated with the Unaccompanied Alien Children’s Program, 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income 

programs, or the Victims of Domestic Trafficking. The estimated FY 2014 figures above reflect 

the President’s FY 2014 Budget request and do not include carryover funds from FY 2013, as 

HHS does not anticipate any carryover funding from FY 2013.
63

TABLE VIII

UNHCR Resettlement Statistics by Resettlement Country CY 2012 Admissions

RESETTLEMENT 

COUNTRY TOTAL

PERCENT OF TOTAL

RESETTLED

United States 53,349 76.57%

Australia 4,989 7.16%

Canada 4,803 6.89%

Sweden 1,545 2.22%

Norway 1,104 1.58%

United Kingdom 989 1.42%

New Zealand 775 1.11%

Finland 755 1.08%

Denmark 320 0.46%

Germany 313 0.45%

Netherlands 262 0.38%

France 83 0.12%

Spain 80 0.11

Switzerland 54 0.08%

Slovakia 50 0.07%

Ireland 40 0.06%

Brazil 39 0.06%

Czech Rep. 25 0.04%

Portugal 21 0.03%

Rep. Of Korea 20 0.03%

Argentina 18 0.03%

Italy 9 0.01%

Iceland 9 0.01%

Uruguay 9 0.01%

Estonia 4 0.01%

Chile 3 0.00%

Hungary 1 0.00%

TOTAL 69,669 100.00%