PROPOSED REFUGEE ADMISSIONS

FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2011

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

SECTION 207(d)(1) and (e)(1-7)

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 2011: Report to the 

Congress is submitted in compliance with Sections 207(d)(1) and (e)(1-7) 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) continues to be a 

visible and extremely important component of the United States’ overall 

effort in support of refugees. On the occasion of World Refugee Day on 

June 18, President Obama stated:

“Some refugees face bleak prospects of returning to their native soil, 

and they must find security in peaceful areas. Many uprooted people 

have found safe haven in America, bringing with them determination 

and optimism to contribute to our cultural, economic, and intellectual 

fabric. Welcoming more refugee men, women, and children than any 

other country, the United States has provided a home to some of the 

world’s most vulnerable individuals, enriching our own country and 

advancing our leadership in the world.”

And Secretary of State Clinton said:

“Whenever possible, we work to return refugees to their homes in 

safety and dignity. But when returning home is not an option, we are 

committed to helping resettle refugees who face the most difficult 

circumstances. Americans have done that time and again, welcoming 

more than 2.5 million refugees into our communities since the 

Refugee Act became law. It goes to the core of who we are as a 

people and a country.”

While third country resettlement cannot be the durable solution for the vast 

majority of the world’s refugees, it must remain a possibility for those refugees 

who are most vulnerable and for whom repatriation or local integration in countries 

of refuge are not viable options. U.S. resettlement should always contribute to 

durable solutions for such refugees, regardless of their location, national origin, 

health status, occupational skills, or level of educational attainment. In the early 

years of the program, large numbers of relatively few nationalities located in a 

limited number of countries dominated the program. Many of the resettled 

refugees had family members already in the United States. Over the past decade, 

however, the United States has worked closely with the United Nations High 

Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to make third country resettlement a viable,

durable solution for increasing numbers from a broader representation of the 

world’s refugee population, which currently stands at over 10 million. While we 

have again resettled large numbers of Iraqis, Burmese, and Bhutanese this year, the 
iii

USRAP has admitted refugees from over 60 nationalities who were processed in 

some 90countries. Over 80 percent of these applicants were referred to us by 

UNHCR either individually or in groups. Relatively few have family members 

resident in the United States.

The Administration has worked closely with the Congress to invest the 

resources necessary to reach smaller numbers of the most desperate populations 

who find themselves in seemingly forgotten locations. For example, after years of 

trying to reach the most vulnerable Darfuri refugees to offer them hope for a way 

out of their situation through resettlement, staff from the Departments of State and 

Homeland Security – with the invaluable support of our processing partners –

overcame formidable security, logistical, and other challenges to process and admit 

a small number of UNHCR-referred Darfuris in Chad. We are also exploring the 

possibility of launching a larger scale program in Chad. We regard this and similar 

efforts as important signs of progress as we seek to ensure that the USRAP is 

consistent with our humanitarian mandate.

The United States has been pleased to support UNHCR in its creative efforts 

to expand the community of nations involved in the resettlement of refugees. In 

recent years, several countries without a history of resettling refugees have stepped 

forward and established programs, including France, the Czech Republic, and 

Portugal. Twenty-four countries resettled UNHCR-referred refugees in 2009. In 

addition, four countries have offered their territory to UNHCR and the 

International Organization for Migration to host Evacuation Transit Centers. This 

provides a valuable opportunity for vulnerable refugees to be moved out of 

insecure or otherwise challenging circumstances to safe locations where they can 

undergo interviews, medical screening, and other required processing in a more 

stable setting.

We also recognize that our third country resettlement program complements 

significant efforts by many developing countries, especially in Africa, at local 

integration of refugee populations they have hosted. In the case of Burundian 

refugees in Tanzania, U.S. resettlement has been a critical component of an overall 

strategy that includes voluntary repatriation to Burundi as well as a decision by the 

Tanzanian government to grant permanent legal status to more than 150,000 1972-

era Burundi refugees to date.

For the last several years, the USRAP has sought to maintain the 

longstanding American tradition of offering resettlement to vulnerable refugees 

while incorporating numerous additional security modifications required after the 
iv

events of September 11, 2001. In FY 2009, the United States admitted close to 

75,000 refugees – more than in any year since 1999. This year’s admissions total 

is estimated to be similar.

This achievement has required a substantial investment of additional federal 

resources by the Departments of State and Homeland Security in the identification, 

processing, transportation, and initial resettlement of refugees. An important 

additional benefit of these efforts (and resources) has been the development of a 

sizeable approved caseload earlier in the fiscal year, which has allowed the more 

even distribution of refugee arrivals throughout the year. This has reduced the end 

of fiscal year stress on resettlement agencies and improved the quality of services 

received by arriving refugees.

While there have been many positive developments in the overseas aspects 

of the USRAP, refugees as well as persons and entities assisting them continue to 

face significant challenges in addressing the needs of refugees after their arrival in 

the United States. Consequently, the White House has led an interagency process 

to develop solutions to these issues, which has also involved consultations with 

stakeholders from outside the federal government.

One substantial change made as a result of this process was a dramatic 

increase in the one-time per capita Reception and Placement grant administered by 

the Department of State for the initial weeks after a refugee’s arrival. This grant 

had declined in real terms by more than 50 percent since its inception in 1975. In 

light of our critical obligations to newly arrived refugees, and thanks to the 

generous support from the Congress, we were able to increase the Reception and 

Placement per capita grant from $900 to $1,800, effective January 1, 2010. This is 

intended to address challenges refugees face in their first 30 to 90 days in the 

United States, and will ensure that, in the first weeks after their arrival, refugees 

have a solid roof over their heads, a clean bed in which to sleep, and basic 

assistance. This is also an expression of solidarity with state and local officials and 

with the local communities that bear the greatest burden in meeting the initial 

needs of new arrivals.

In addition, the Administration has requested an extra $25 million in its FY

2011 budget request for the Office of Refugee Resettlement in the Department of 

Health and Human Services to enhance case management services for refugees and 

address their emergency housing needs. Furthermore, the administration has 

adopted a number of other changes to the program, including regular interagency 

meetings led by National Security staff, more frequent consultations with external 
v

stakeholders, the provision to local agencies of more complete information about 

cases before they arrive, and greater attention to the health care needs of refugees 

after arrival. The overall goal is for all parties involved – be they at the federal, 

state, or local level, and from both the public and private sectors – to more 

effectively meet the needs of resettled refugees. Such enhanced coordination and 

communication is particularly needed in light of the changed – and more diverse –

character of the program. The Administration will continue to explore ways of 

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

their arrival.

Overseas, we will also seek to enhance our efforts at the strategic use of U.S. 

resettlement, by using that option to promote more generous policies among 

countries of origin and refugee hosting countries toward repatriation and local 

integration, respectively, and to leverage greater support for third country 

resettlement among governments with the capacity to do more in this area. The 

goal of this process will be to ensure that all refugees’ needs are being met through 

the most efficient use of resources possible.

We have also made substantial progress over the past year in addressing 

obstacles to the admission of refugees who are affected by the broad definitions of 

“terrorist activity” and “terrorist organization” under U.S. law. To address this 

problem, National Security staff led an interagency process that reached agreement

on a more effective and efficient set of procedures for using the expanded 

exemption authority in Section 691 of Division J of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act (CAA), 2008. These procedures aim to take careful account of

both humanitarian and national security concerns. 

As is the case for most countries with large scale immigration and refugee 

programs, U.S. law requires completion of several processing “steps” before an 

applicant can be admitted as a refugee. This does not exclude the United States 

from participation in the resettlement of urgent cases, however. On a case-by-case 

basis, individual applicants in need of expedited handling are processed on an 

accelerated schedule. In addition, the United States has contributed generously to 

allow UNHCR to establish and operate Evacuation Transit Centers where 

emergency cases can be moved from insecure locations during the case processing 

period.

During the past year, the USRAP has contributed substantially to the 

international community’s efforts to provide durable solutions to some of the 

world’s most vulnerable refugees, including survivors or torture or gender based 
vi

violence, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) individuals. Many 

vulnerable refugees have lived in protracted situations for years, uncertain about 

their fate and severely limited in their capacity to develop their potential. While 

starting life anew in the United States presents considerable challenges, it also 

creates hope and opportunity for tens of thousands of persons each year. The 

support and assistance that average Americans provide to these newcomers makes 

a significant difference in hastening their integration into our country, where they 

add to our vitality and diversity by making substantial contributions to our 

economic and cultural life.
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction i

Foreword iii

I. OVERVIEW OF U.S. REFUGEE POLICY 1

II. REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM FOR FY 2011 6

Proposed Ceilings 6

Unallocated Reserve 7

Admissions Procedures 7

Eligibility Criteria 7

Priority 1: Individual Referrals 8

Priority 2: Group Referrals 9

FY 2011 Priority 2 Designations 11

Priority 3: Family Reunification Cases 13

FY 2011 Priority 3 Nationalities 15

Visas 93: Family Reunification Following to Join 15

DHS/USCIS Refugee Adjudications 16

The Eligibility Determination 17

Background Checks 17

Processing Activities of the Department of State 18

Overseas Processing Services 18

Cultural Orientation 18

Transportation 19

Reception and Placement (R&P) 19

III. REGIONAL PROGRAMS 21

Africa 22

Religious Freedom 22

Voluntary Repatriation 24

Local Integration 25

Third-Country Resettlement 26

FY 2010 U.S. Admissions 27

FY 2011 U.S. Resettlement Program 27
viii

East Asia 28

Religious Freedom 30

Voluntary Repatriation 32

Local Integration 32

Third-Country Resettlement 32

FY 2010 U.S. Admissions 33

FY 2011 U.S. Resettlement Program 33

Europe and Central Asia 34

Religious Freedom 35

Voluntary Repatriation 37

Local Integration 38

Third-Country Resettlement 38

FY 2010 U.S. Admissions 39

FY 2011 U.S. Resettlement Program 39

Latin America and the Caribbean 39

Religious Freedom 41

Voluntary Repatriation 41

Local Integration 42

Third and In-Country Resettlement 42

FY 2010 U.S. Admissions 44

FY 2011 U.S. Resettlement Program 44

Near East and South Asia 45

Religious Freedom 46

Voluntary Repatriation 47

Local Integration 49

Third-Country Resettlement 51

FY 2010 U.S. Admissions 53

FY 2011 U.S. Resettlement Program 53

IV. DOMESTIC IMPACT OF REFUGEE ADMISSIONS 56
ix

LIST OF TABLES

Page

I. Refugee Admissions in FY 2009 and FY 2010, 6

Proposed Refugee Admissions by Region for FY 2011

II. Proposed FY 2011 Regional Ceilings by Priority 21

III. Religious Freedom: Resettlement Access for Refugees

from Countries Designated by the Department of State

as Countries of Particular Concern 55

IV. Refugee Arrivals by Country of Origin, FY 2009 57

V. Median Age and Gender of Refugee Arrivals, FY 2009 59

VI. Select Age Categories of Refugee Arrivals, FY 2009 60

VII. Refugee Arrivals by State of Initial Resettlement, FY 2009 61

VIII. Estimated Costs of Refugee Processing, Movement, and 

Resettlement FY 2010 and FY 2011 63

IX. UNHCR Resettlement Statistics by Resettlement Country, 

CY 2009 64
1

I. OVERVIEW OF U.S. REFUGEE POLICY 

At the end of 2009, the estimated refugee population worldwide stood 

at 15.2 million, with 10.5 million receiving protection or assistance from 

UNHCR. The United States actively supports efforts to provide protection, 

assistance, and durable solutions to refugees, as these measures meet both 

our humanitarian objectives and our foreign policy and national security 

interests. Combined with humanitarian diplomacy, U.S. financial 

contributions to international and non-governmental organizations are vital 

to achieving these goals. Under the authority in 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, and other vulnerable migrants. These 

contributions address the legal and physical protection needs of refugees as 

well as their basic assistance needs for 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. 

During FY 2010, the United States continued to support the 

achievement of durable solutions for refugees through voluntary repatriation 

programs around the world. In seeking durable solutions for refugees, the 

United States and UNHCR recognize that – for most refugees – safe 

voluntary return to their homelands is their preferred solution. Refugee 

repatriation operations to countries including Mauritania, Afghanistan, 

Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Sudan proceeded 

during FY 2010, representing significant progress in the protection of 

refugees, as well as in their home countries’ stabilization, reconstruction, 

and development.

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 works 

diplomatically to encourage host governments to protect refugees through 

local integration and provides assistance to help meet integration needs 

through programs that promote refugee self-sufficiency and communitybased social services. Afghans in India, Burundi in Tanzania, Liberians and 
2

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

Ecuador and Costa Rica are among those populations for whom 

opportunities for local integration have recently become possible.

UNHCR identifies some 6.6 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 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 

achieve solutions for stateless persons, including addressing gaps in 

citizenship laws and promoting fair application of those laws. The United 

States is by far the largest single donor to UNHCR, providing over $641 

million to UNHCR in FY 2009. These contributions to UNHCR’s core 

budget support efforts to address statelessness in Burma, the Dominican 

Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Kyrgyzstan, the Balkans, Ukraine, Kenya, Nepal, 

and elsewhere. In Kyrgyzstan, for example, UNHCR and NGOs conducted 

a survey that identified 10,000 stateless persons previously unknown to the 

authorities. 

In addition, the Department of State seeks to use the USRAP 

strategically, as a means of providing a durable solution to stateless 

individuals as well as groups in need of resettlement. This is reflected in the 

current resettlement programs for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and 

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

of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) also employs diplomacy to 

mobilize other governments to prevent and resolve situations of 

statelessness. For example, PRM conducted field missions and monitoring 

of situations of statelessness in the Dominican Republic, Thailand, Vietnam, 

and Bangladesh. In the UN Human Rights Council, PRM used multilateral 

diplomacy to successfully introduce language on statelessness into a recent 

resolution on migrant children.

The United States and UNHCR also recognize resettlement in 

third countries as a vital tool for providing refugees protection and/or 

durable solutions, particularly for those for whom other durable solutions 

are not feasible. For some refugees, resettlement is the best, or perhaps 

only, alternative. The United States also encourages UNHCR to refer for 
3

resettlement stateless refugees, either as individuals or groups, for whom 

other durable solutions are not possible, even if they are located in their 

country of habitual residence.

Recognizing the importance of ensuring UNHCR’s capacity to 

identify and refer refugees in need of resettlement, the U.S. government has 

for more than a decade provided financial support to expand and improve 

the organization’s resettlement infrastructure. As a result of this initiative, 

UNHCR has substantially increased referrals to the United States and other 

resettlement countries. We will continue to work with UNHCR and consult 

with host governments on group referrals. We will continue to assess 

resettlement needs and allow qualified non-governmental organizations 

(NGOs) to refer refugee applicants to the program. 

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

number of countries active in resettlement and engaged bilaterally on the 

issue. In 2009, UNHCR referred refugees to 27 countries for resettlement 

consideration. About 90 percent were referred to the United States, Canada, 

and Australia. Smaller numbers of referrals were made to Germany, 

Sweden, Norway, Great Britain, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, New 

Zealand, France, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Chile, Portugal, Japan, 

Romania, Argentina, Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Uruguay, Luxembourg, 

Ireland, the Czech Republic, and Spain.

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 provide resettlement consideration to at least 50 

percent of all refugees referred by UNHCR worldwide, depending on 

availability of funds. In 2009, some 73 percent of UNHCR-referred 

refugees were resettled in the United States (see Table IX). We have 

encouraged UNHCR to make further strategic use of resettlement and to 

continue to develop resettlement as a durable solution for vulnerable 

refugees.

The foreign policy and humanitarian interests of the United States are 

often advanced by our willingness to work with first asylum and 

resettlement countries to address refugee issues. 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. During the past few years, U.S.

resettlement efforts in Africa, the Middle East, and East Asia have helped 
4

energize efforts by UNHCR and other countries to ensure that: first asylum 

is maintained for larger refugee populations; local integration solutions are 

offered; and third country resettlement is accorded to those in need of that 

solution. In certain locations, the prompt resettlement of politically sensitive 

cases has helped defuse regional tensions. In the case of Bhutanese refugees 

in Nepal, the U.S. offer of resettlement helped garner similar pledges from 

other countries, while the international community is still pressing for the 

right of refugees to return voluntarily to Bhutan or for their ability to seek 

local integration opportunities in Nepal.

During its history, the USRAP has responded to changing refugee 

circumstances. Even before the events of September 11, 2001, the end of 

the Cold War had dramatically altered the context in which the USRAP 

operates worldwide. Having shifted its focus away from large groups 

concentrated in a few locations, primarily refugees from Vietnam, the 

former Soviet Union, and the former Yugoslavia, the program began to offer 

resettlement to refugees of over 50 nationalities per year. Interviews are 

often conducted in remote locations and are geared toward populations in 

greatest need of third country resettlement opportunities. The Department of 

Homeland Security’s creation of the Refugee Corps within U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services in 2005 has been a key factor in increasing the 

scope and flexibility of the USRAP.

Refugees resettled in the United States contribute positively to the 

diversity and enrichment of our country. The USRAP emphasizes the 

principle 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 they are able to provide services according to established 

standards. Department of Health and Human Services-funded programs 

administered in individual states and the District of Columbia provide cash 

and medical assistance, training programs, employment, and other support 

services to arriving refugees.

An increasing proportion of arriving refugees do not have close family 

members already living in the United States to help with their adjustment 

and integration. The refugee population is increasingly diverse 
5

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

shortage of available affordable housing, particularly in urban areas, 

continues. All of these factors create significant challenges for the 

resettlement agencies in meeting the needs of refugees in the program. The 

Department of State is working closely with the resettlement agencies on 

adjustments that will enhance capacities to provide effective services.
6

II. REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM FOR FY 2011

PROPOSED CEILINGS

TABLE I

REFUGEE ADMISSIONS IN FY 2009 AND FY 2010,

PROPOSED REFUGEE ADMISSIONS BY REGION FOR FY 2011

REGION

FY 2009

ACTUAL 

ARRIVALS

FY 2010

CEILING

FY 2010

REVISED 

CEILING

FY 2010

PROJECTED 

ARRIVALS

PROPOSED 

FY2011

CEILING

Africa 9,670 15,500 13,500 15,000

East Asia 19,850 17,000 18,000* 17,500 19,000

Europe and Central Asia 1,997 2,500 1,500 2,000

Latin America/Caribbean 4,857 5,000 5,500* 5,000 5,500

Near East/South Asia 38,280 35,000 38,000* 37,000 35,500

Regional Subtotal 74,654 75,000 79,500 74,500 77,000

Unallocated Reserve 5,000 500 3,000

Total 74,654 80,000 80,000 74,500 80,000

*3,000 admissions numbers from the Unallocated Reserve were allocated to the Near 

East/South Asia ceiling, 1,000 to the East Asia ceiling, and 500 to the Latin 

America/Caribbean ceiling in the fourth quarter of FY 2010, because refugee arrivals 

were projected to exceed the original ceilings.

Some refugees are considered for resettlement through in-country 

refugee programs. 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 2011 proposal 

recommends continuing such in-country processing for specified groups in 
7

Iraq, Cuba, and the countries of the former Soviet Union, and stateless 

individuals referred by UNHCR. 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 DHS/USCIS.

Unallocated Reserve

This proposal includes 3,000 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 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 the Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services (DHS/USCIS) and other agencies, in carrying out 

this responsibility.

Section 207(a)(3) of the INA states that the U.S. Refugee Admissions 

Program 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 U.S. Refugee 

Admissions Program priority system. There are currently three priorities or 

categories of cases that have access to the USRAP:

• 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;
8

• Priority 3 – Individual cases from eligible 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 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 Visas 93 below.)

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

priorities does not mean an applicant meets the U.S. statutory “refugee” 

definition or is admissible to the United States. The ultimate determination 

as to whether an applicant can be admitted as a refugee is made by 

DHS/USCIS in accordance with criteria set forth in the INA. 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 assignment to 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 allows consideration of refugee claims from persons of any 

nationality2

, in any location, often 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. NGOs providing 

humanitarian assistance in locations where there are large concentrations of 

refugees may also undergo training by PRM and DHS/USCIS in order to be 

eligible to provide Priority 1 referrals. 

 2 Referrals of North Koreans and Palestinians require State Department and DHS/USCIS concurrence 

before they may be granted access to the USRAP.
9

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 them to the 

appropriate Overseas Processing Entity (OPE) 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, an alternative vehicle, 

“Significant Public Benefit Parole” (SPBP, a program administered by the 

Department of Homeland Security) may be a more appropriate option.

PRIORITY 2 – GROUP REFERRALS

Priority 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.

Priority 2 group referrals are typically developed with the 

involvement of UNHCR, Refugee Coordinators, NGOs, PRM program 

officers, or other State Department officials. PRM plays the coordinating 

role for all group referrals to the USRAP. There is no minimum or 

maximum number of applicants required for a group referral.

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 
10

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 possess the required characteristic(s) to establish 

eligibility for inclusion.

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

programs, including the long-standing programs in the former Soviet Union, 

Cuba, and Vietnam. It was also used successfully for Bosnian refugees 

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

Iraqis with links to the United States. 

The OPE(s) 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 group designation is normally 

based on a UNHCR recommendation that lays out eligibility criteria that 

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 biodata 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, or 

counterproductive. Often predefined groups are composed of persons with 

similar persecution claims. The predefined group referral process is a stepsaver and can conserve scarce resources, particularly for UNHCR. 

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 
11

resettlement process in cases where immediate protection concerns are 

present.

FY 2011 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 

2011:

Former Soviet Union

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

Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox religious activists 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.

Cuba

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

persecuted religious minorities, former political prisoners, forced-labor 

conscripts (1965-68), 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 

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, and U.S. media and 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. 
12

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 2011. 

(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 existing Priority 2 designation, Iranian members of certain 

religious minorities are eligible for processing and benefit from a reduced 

evidentiary standard for establishing a well-founded fear of persecution, 

pursuant to the 2004 enactment of P.L. 108-199.

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, and U.S. media and 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. 

Eritreans in Shimelba

Under this Priority 2 designation, Eritrean refugees (except those Kunama 

who previously went through refugee processing) who were registered with 
13

UNHCR in the Shimelba Camp prior to August 7, 2008, or who were 

registered in the former Wa’ala Nhibi Camp and re-registered or re-validated 

in the Shimelba Camp in November 2004, are eligible for processing.

Darfuri in Chad

We have established a Priority 2 for vulnerable Darfuri in Chad who are 

registered with UNHCR and identified as being in need of resettlement. 

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 list may be modified by the PRM Assistant Secretary, in consultation 

with DHS/USCIS, during the year, but additions or deletions are generally 

made to coincide with the fiscal year.

Fundamentally, 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 family-reunification 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.

Previously, 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 relatives of the U.S.-based anchor have traditionally 

been eligible for inclusion on the case: spouses, unmarried children under 

21, and/or parents. Qualifying anchors are persons who were admitted to the 
14

United States as refugees 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, 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 Primary 

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

a refugee.

In March 2008, in consultation with DHS/USCIS, PRM suspended P3 processing and issued a moratorium on P-3 arrivals from certain 

processing locations due to indications of extremely high rates of fraud 

obtained through pilot DNA testing. Further, in October 2008, PRM 

suspended the acceptance of AORs of all nationalities while PRM and 

DHS/USCIS examined how additional procedures may be incorporated into 

P-3 processing on a more regular basis so that the family reunification 

component of the program can resume, while at the same time safeguarding 

the integrity of the program. In this regard, we are also in the final stages of 

revising the AOR. Revisions to the P-3 program and AOR are undergoing 

final review as we approach the end of FY 2010. PRM and DHS/USCIS 

will update the Congress when the revisions are complete, and we are 

prepared to resume P-3 processing, likely with a DNA relationship testing 

requirement for certain claimed biological relationships.
15

FY 2011 Priority 3 Nationalities

Upon resumption, P-3 processing will be available to individuals of the 

following nationalities:

Afghanistan 

Bhutan

Burma

Burundi

Central African Republic

Chad

Colombia

Cuba

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Iran

Iraq

Republic of Congo (ROC)

Somalia

Sri Lanka

Sudan

Uzbekistan

Zimbabwe

Chad and the Republic of Congo are additions to this list for FY 2011.

VISAS 93 – FAMILY REUNIFICATION FOLLOWING-TO-JOIN PETITIONS

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

may request following-to-join benefits for his or her spouse and 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 I-730 Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition3

 3 This petition is used to file for the relatives of refugees and asylees, known as Visas 93 and Visas 92 

cases respectively. The Refugee Admissions Program handles only Visas 93 cases, which are counted 

within the annual refugee admissions ceiling. Visas 92 cases are not considered to be refugee admissions 

cases and are not counted in the number of refuges admitted annually.

for each eligible family 

member with DHS/USCIS. If the Form I-730 is approved by DHS/USCIS 
16

(signifying adequate proof of a qualifying family relationship), the National 

Visa Center then forwards the petition for processing to the embassy or 

consulate nearest to the location of the beneficiaries of the petition. (Note: 

In locations where the USRAP has a significant processing operation, these 

cases are often forwarded to the OPE for initial processing and presentation 

to DHS/USCIS rather than the consular section within the embassy.)

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. These interviews are 

not refugee adjudications. The beneficiaries are not required to demonstrate 

a persecution claim, 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. As the wait 

for processing of I-730 petitions has been substantial in some countries, 

USCIS, in conjunction with the Department of State, has launched a review 

of the procedures for handling these petitions with the goal of developing a 

more efficient and effective process.

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 does the P-3 process.

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 

DHS/USCIS. Beginning in FY 2006, DHS/USCIS restructured the Refugee 

Affairs Division and established the Refugee Corps. The Refugee Corps is 

staffed by DHS/USCIS officers dedicated to adjudicating applications for 

refugee status. The Refugee Corps provides DHS/USCIS with the necessary 
17

resources and flexibility to respond to an increasingly diversified refugee 

admissions program. DHS/USCIS has also substantially enhanced its antifraud, training, and policy-setting 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 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 under INA § 

207. 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 they may be exempted.

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

interview of each 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

All refugee applicants are required to undergo background security 

checks. Security checks consist of biographic name checks for all refugee 

applicants and biometric (fingerprint) checks for refugee applicants aged 14 

to 79. PRM, through its overseas processing entities, initiates background 

name checks, and name check adjudicators of the PRM-contracted Refugee 

Processing Center (RPC) conduct initial vetting. DHS/USCIS reviews and 

analyzes the results of biographic and biometric background check results to 
18

determine whether the data have an impact on the refugee eligibility 

determination. DHS/USCIS has established enhanced security vetting 

procedures in partnership with the national security and intelligence 

communities.

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 an Overseas 

Processing Entity (OPE) that assists in the processing of refugees for 

admission to the United States. OPE 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 OPEs assist 

applicants in completing documentary requirements and schedule 

DHS/USCIS refugee interviews. If an applicant is approved for 

resettlement, OPE staff guide the refugee through post-adjudication steps, 

including obtaining medical screening exams and attending cultural 

orientation programs. The OPE obtains sponsorship assurances and, once all 

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

United States.

In FY 2010, NGOs (Church World Service, Hebrew Immigrant Aid 

Society, and International Rescue Committee) worked under cooperative 

agreements with PRM as OPEs at locations in Austria, Ghana (covering 

West and Central Africa until June 2010), Kenya (covering East and 

Southern Africa until June 2010, and then all of sub-Saharan Africa for the 

remainder of the fiscal year), and Thailand (covering East Asia). 

International organizations and NGOs (IOM and the International Catholic 

Migration Commission [ICMC]) support refugee processing activities based 

in Jordan, Russia, Nepal, and Turkey covering the Middle East, South and 

Central Asia, and Europe. The admissions program operates at a U.S. 

government installation in 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 significant 

life changes they will experience by providing cultural orientation programs 

prior to departure for the United States. It is critical that refugees arrive with 
19

a realistic view of what their new lives will be like, what services are 

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 state government officials. 

Welcome to the United States is produced in 17 languages: Albanian, 

Amharic, Arabic, Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, English, Farsi, French, Karen, 

Karenni, Kirundi, Kiswahili, Nepali, Russian, Somali, Spanish, Tigrinya,

and Vietnamese. 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 17 

languages: Af-Maay, Arabic, Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, English, Farsi, 

French, Hmong, Karen, Karenni, Kirundi, Kiswahili, Nepali, Russian, 

Somali, Spanish, Tigrinya, and Vietnamese. In addition, the Department of 

State enters into cooperative agreements for one-to-three 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 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.

Reception and Placement (R&P)

In FY 2010, PRM funded cooperative agreements with 10 private 

voluntary agencies to provide initial resettlement services to arriving 

refugees. The R&P agencies agree to provide initial reception and core 

services (including housing, furnishings, clothing, food, medical, 

employment, and social service referrals) to arriving refugees. These 

services are provided according to standards of care developed jointly by the 

NGO community and U.S. government agencies. The 10 organizations 

maintain a nationwide network of some 350 affiliated offices to provide 

services. Two of the organizations also maintain a network of 20 affiliated 
20

offices through which unaccompanied refugee minors are placed into foster 

care funded by the Department of Health and Human Services.

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

contributions from private and other sources, the R&P agreement obligates 

the participating agencies to provide the following services:

• Sponsorship;

• Pre-arrival resettlement planning, including placement;

• Reception on arrival;

• Basic needs support (including housing, furnishings, food, and 

clothing) for at least 30 days;

• Community orientation; 

• Referrals to health, employment, education, and other services as 

needed; and

• Development and implementation of an initial resettlement plan for 

each refugee for 90-180 days.

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.
21

III. REGIONAL PROGRAMS

TABLE II

PROPOSED FY 2011 REGIONAL CEILINGS BY PRIORITY

AFRICA

Approved pipeline from FY 2010 4,500

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 7,500

Priority 2 Groups 2,500

Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees 500

Total Proposed: 15,000

EAST ASIA

Approved pipeline from FY 2010 6,600

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 300

Priority 2 Groups 12,000

Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees 100

Total Proposed: 19,000

EUROPE / CENTRAL ASIA

Approved pipeline from FY 2010 850

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 140

Priority 2 Groups 1,000

Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees 10

Total Proposed: 2,000

LATIN AMERICA / CARIBBEAN

Approved pipeline from FY 2010 2,850

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 300

Priority 2 Groups 2,300

Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees 50

Total Proposed: 5,500

NEAR EAST / SOUTH ASIA

Approved pipeline from FY 2010 25,000

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 5,000

Priority 2 Groups 5,400

Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees 100

Total Proposed: 35,500

UNALLOCATED RESERVE 3,000

TOTAL PROPOSED CEILING: 80,000
22

AFRICA

There are currently some 2.4 million refugees across the African 

continent, comprising roughly 20 percent of the global refugee population. 

This represents a significant reduction in the African refugee population in 

recent years, and in 2010, progress toward resolution of outstanding issues 

concerning major refugee populations in Africa continues. UN-organized 

repatriations were underway for refugees from Sudan, Burundi, the DRC, 

and Mauritania in 2009. Organized repatriations to Liberia and Angola were 

largely completed in 2007, as was Mauritania’s in 2009; efforts continue to 

integrate locally residual refugee populations before the cessation clause of 

the Refugee Convention is invoked.

At the same time, ongoing violence in Somalia as well as in western 

and eastern DRC has generated new refugee flows. Eritreans continue to 

seek asylum in neighboring countries due to political tensions and increasing 

political repression. In Zimbabwe, economic collapse and political 

instability generate continued outflows of migrants and asylum seekers.

The principle of first asylum is honored by most African countries. 

Traditionally, refugees in Africa have been allowed to remain – and in many 

cases to effectively integrate locally – until voluntary repatriation is possible. 

In most cases, local integration is de facto, and does not include granting of 

legal permanent residence or voting rights. However, countries such as 

Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Liberia, and Sierra Leone have initiated 

programs legalizing the status (de jure local integration) of long-staying 

refugee populations interested in remaining on their territories. Tanzania 

granted citizenship to 162,000 Burundi refugees in early 2010.

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 the most severe religious 

freedom abuses in Africa. In recent years it has engaged in serious religious 

repression by harassing, arresting, and detaining members of independent 

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

certain rights of citizenship for not participating in the 1993 national 
23

referendum), and a reform movement within the Eritrean Orthodox Church. 

It has also sought greater control over the four 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, including facilities administered by the military and police stations 

inside Asmara and other cities. Often detainees have not been formally 

charged, accorded due process, or allowed access to their families. While 

many were ostensibly jailed for evasion of military conscription, significant 

numbers were being held solely for their religious beliefs. As of April 2010, 

the Jehovah’s Witness International Office reports that 58 known Jehovah’s 

Witnesses are in detention without access to legal representation, and many 

have not yet been charged with a crime.

In Sudan, distinctions in the constitution negotiated as part of the 

Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) have resulted in disparities in the 

treatment of religious minorities in the north and south. Whereas the 

Government of Southern Sudan generally respects the rights of Christians 

and Muslims in the 10 states of the south as provided for in its separate 2005 

Constitution of Southern Sudan, the Government of National Unity (GNU) 

continues to place restrictions on Christians in the North. The Constitution 

preserves sharia as a source of legislation in the north, while the Constitution 

of Southern Sudan establishes “the traditional laws, religious beliefs, values, 

and customary practices of the people” as a source of legislation in the 

south. Although there is no penalty for converting from another religion to 

Islam, converting from Islam is punishable by death in the north. This

penalty has never been imposed by the current government, 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.

On January 16, 2009, the Secretary of State re-designated both Eritrea 

and Sudan as “Countries of Particular Concern” (CPC) for particularly 

severe violations of religious freedom. The USRAP continues to be 

available to Sudanese, Eritrean, and other refugees who are victims of 

religious intolerance through Priority 1 referrals. Refugees from Eritrea and 
24

Sudan with refugee or asylee family members in the United States also have 

access to the program through Priority 3, subject to its resumption, and 

certain Eritrean refugees in Ethiopia have access through Priority 2.

In Somalia, although the Transitional Federal Charter provides for 

religious freedom, there are limits on the extent to which this right is 

respected in practice. The Transitional Federal Government generally does 

not enforce legal protections of religious freedom. Respect for religious 

freedom has continued to decline, primarily as a result of extremist militias 

taking control over significant territory in the country. Militia groups, 

particularly those associated with the U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist 

Organization al-Shabaab, often imposed through violence a strict 

interpretation of Islam on communities under their control. There were also 

reports that individuals who do not practice Islam experienced 

discrimination, violence, and detention because of their religious beliefs.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the government generally 

respects religious freedom in practice, and there have been no reports of 

societal abuses or discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or 

practice. However, there continue to be credible reports that families 

abandon or abuse persons, including children, accused of witchcraft. In 

Ethiopia, localized tensions between Muslim and Christian communities 

have been known to result in violent episodes. Several civic and 

government programs have attempted to address sectarian violence. The 

government generally respected religious freedom in practice although, on 

occasion, local authorities infringed on this right.

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 

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 Africa. Over the past 15 years, refugee 

numbers have reduced by more than 60 percent (from six to fewer than three 

million) even in the face of new outflows.

In West Africa, UNHCR’s Liberian repatriation program officially 

ended in June 2007, with some 650,000 Liberians having returned home 

either spontaneously or with UNHCR assistance. The focus now is on local 
25

integration as a durable solution for some 60,000 Liberians who remain 

outside their country in various West African countries. UNHCR launched 

its Mauritania repatriation operation in January 2008 and, despite the coup 

d’état in August of that year, succeeded in repatriating over 19,000 of the 

24,000 Mauritanian refugees in Senegal by December 2009, when the 

organized return program ended.

In East Africa, even larger numbers have returned home. Repatriation 

to southern Sudan started in 2005 and has continued apace with over 

350,000 – over 75 percent of the original refugee population – having 

returned from neighboring countries as of May 2010. No return initiatives 

are currently anticipated for the Darfur region of Sudan or Somalia, where 

conflict continues to produce more than 5,000 new refugees per month. 

Over 550,000 Somalis have now sought asylum in neighboring countries.

In Central Africa, repatriation to Burundi continues with over 500,000 

returns since 2002. Another 10,000 are expected to return in 2010, while 

most of the remaining 230,000 have been granted citizenship or are in the 

process of formalizing their permanent status in Tanzania. Although the 

majority of Rwandan refugees returned home in the late 1990s, some 50,000 

Rwandans remained in exile. UNHCR expects to repatriate 10,000 

Rwandans in 2010. Repatriation to relatively stable areas of the DRC 

continues with over 200,000 returns by May 2010. Ongoing movements, 

primarily from Zambia and Tanzania to the Katanga Province, continue in 

2010. The North Kivu and Orientale Provinces remain too insecure for 

large-scale refugee return. Ethnic violence that erupted in late 2009 in 

Equateur Province forced some 200,000 Congolese to flee to the Central 

African Republic and the Republic of Congo and, by May 2010, refugees 

still remained fearful of return.

Local Integration 

In a number of protracted refugee situations, refugees have been able 

to become self-sufficient and their camps and settlements have been 

effectively integrated into the host communities. 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 local integration, 

however, refugees residing among the local population did not necessarily 

enjoy the rights, entitlements, or economic opportunities available to legal 
26

residents. As a result, local 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 Cote 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. The program provides 

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 under the protocols of the Economic Community of West African 

States.

Senegal offered Mauritanian refugees who wished to remain in 

Senegal the option of becoming Senegalese citizens in 2007 but has not yet 

established procedures for refugees to take advantage of this option. The 

Governments of Uganda and Zambia 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 agreed to provide permanent settlement and 

citizenship to the estimated 200,000 1972-era Burundi refugees who desire 

it; some 162,000 accepted the offer and were granted citizenship as of April 

2010, and the balance have returned to Burundi.

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.
27

FY 2010 U.S. Admissions

We project some 13,500 African refugee arrivals in FY 2010. Three 

countries of origin (Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Eritrea) 

presently account for the vast majority of U.S. admissions from the region. 

In East Africa, we continue to work toward completing processing of the 

residual, already-identified Congolese and Burundian caseload in Tanzania. 

In Kenya, a surge in UNHCR referrals from the Dadaab camps will lead to 

close to 3,000 P-1 Somali admissions this year. Processing of P-1 Darfuri 

and Central African Republic refugees in eastern and southern Chad, which 

began in FY2009 and continues into FY 2010, will result in over 200 

arrivals during the course of the year. We have largely completed the 

processing of the residual P-3 Liberian caseload in West Africa, and with the 

civil wars having ended some seven years ago, we no longer receive 

resettlement referrals in any significant number for this population. Some 

1,000 refugee admissions of various nationalities from West Africa are 

expected this year. In all, we expect to admit refugees of more than 20 

African nationalities, processed in nearly thirty countries during FY 2010.

We anticipate that U.S. refugee admissions from Africa in FY 2010 

will exceed FY 2009 levels by 30-35 percent due to the identification of new 

caseloads and an increase in referrals by UNHCR.

FY 2011 U.S. Resettlement Program

We propose up to 15,000 resettlement numbers for African refugees 

in FY 2011. PRM has actively engaged relevant offices within the 

Department of State, UNHCR, the voluntary agency community, and 

DHS/USCIS to identify caseloads appropriate for resettlement consideration. 

As a result of these discussions, PRM has identified a number of 

nationalities and groups for priority processing during FY 2011.
28

From East and Southern Africa, we expect 12-13,000 admissions, 

primarily Somalis in Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and South Africa; 

Congolese in Tanzania, Rwanda, Uganda, and South Africa; Eritreans in 

Shimelba Camp (Ethiopia) who are eligible for P-2 processing; and 

additional small numbers of P-1 referrals of various nationalities in the 

countries above, plus Burundi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. 

From West and Central Africa, we expect approximately 1,000 

admissions. We anticipate that the largest numbers will be Darfuri and 

Central African Republic refugees processed in Chad. In addition, we 

anticipate smaller numbers of P-1 referrals processed in Cameroon, Gabon, 

Guinea, and Ghana.

Outside of sub-Saharan Africa, we anticipate Sudanese, Somali, 

Ethiopian, Eritrean and other African refugees to be processed in Yemen, 

Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt.

Proposed FY 2011 Africa program: 

Approved pipeline from FY 2010 4,500

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 7,500

Priority 2 Groups 2,500

Priority 3 Family Reunification 500

Total Proposed Ceiling 15,000

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.
29

Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh, and India continue to host large 

numbers of Burmese refugees and asylum-seekers. The U.S. government 

continues to promote a genuine democratic transition in Burma. 

Unfortunately, with no sign that the Burmese government will respond 

positively to calls for democratic reform in advance of the planned 2010 

elections, and continued attacks against ethnic minority populations, 

prospects for refugees to return to safe and stable conditions appear distant.

As of April 2010, more than 107,000 registered refugees from Burma 

are recognized by UNHCR and live in nine Royal Thai Governmentadministered refugee camps along the Thai-Burma border. The Thai 

government continues to support the international community’s efforts to 

resettle large numbers of refugees from these camps. Despite ongoing 

resettlement, births and arrivals of refugees fleeing continued conflict in 

Burma have precluded reduction of the camps’ total population.

Since 2006, UNHCR Malaysia has operated the second largest 

refugee status determination program in the world. As of May 2010, there 

were 87,699 persons of concern registered with UNHCR in Malaysia of 

which 81,219, or 93 percent, are from Burma (39,068 Chin, 18,750 stateless 

Rohingya from Burma’s Northern Rakhine State, and 23,401 other ethnic 

minorities). In addition, some 6,480 asylum-seekers and refugees from 46 

countries – primarily Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Sri Lanka – are 

registered with UNHCR. 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 a significant 

number of refugees in Malaysia.

In 1992, more than 250,000 Burmese Rohingya suffering de jure

statelessness and oppression due to their Muslim faith and ethnicity migrated 

from Rakhine State to Bangladesh. During the 1990s, over 230,000 

Rohingya refugees were voluntarily repatriated from Bangladesh, leaving 

behind approximately 28,000, who remain in two UNHCR camps in 

southern Bangladesh. An additional 13,000 unregistered Rohingya reside in 

an unofficial settlement in Leda. In addition to those who have remained in 

the camps, an unknown number who had previously repatriated have again 

returned to Bangladesh and are now living without UNHCR protection. In 

all, there are approximately 200,000-500,000 unregistered Rohingya living 

outside of the two official UNHCR refugee camps in the Cox’s Bazar 

district. UNHCR continues to work to enhance protection and address 

security concerns caused by growing tensions between both registered 
30

refugees and unregistered Rohingya and local Bangladeshis living outside of 

the camps. UNHCR continues to refer Rohingya for U.S. resettlement 

consideration and we expect some 1,000 referrals by the end of FY 2010. 

We expect ongoing UNHCR referrals of Rohingya from Bangladesh as well 

as urban Burmese in India.

As reflected in the North Korean Human Rights Act, the United States 

is deeply concerned about the human rights situation of North Koreans both 

inside the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) 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 permit religious freedom, 

religious believers face serious persecution in several countries. 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 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.

The situation in countries such as China, Burma and, to a certain 

extent, Vietnam, is complex. While the constitutions of these countries 

ostensibly provide for freedom of religion, in practice these governments 

restrict or repress activities of some religious organizations. Some 

independent religious activities may be either prohibited or restricted, and 

dissenters may face physical mistreatment or imprisonment.

Despite dramatic increases in religious observance in China, the 

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 Uighur 

Muslims in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region), and Buddhists loyal to 

the Dalai Lama. There are many cases of arrest, imprisonment, and alleged 

torture of religious believers in China. Practitioners of the banned spiritual 
31

movement Falun Gong have also been subjected to arrest, imprisonment, 

and alleged torture.

In Burma, the government maintains a pervasive internal security 

apparatus that generally infiltrates or monitors the activities of all 

organizations, including religious groups. The government actively 

promotes Buddhism over other religions as a means of boosting its own 

legitimacy and continues harsh discrimination against religious minorities. 

The DPRK, China, and Burma are designated by the Department of State as 

CPCs under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRF Act) for 

serious violations of religious freedom.

Over the past few years, Vietnam and Laos have made progress on 

many religious freedom issues. The Government of Vietnam and the United 

States signed a binding agreement on religious freedom (as allowed by the 

IRF Act) in May 2005, under which Vietnam committed to implementing 

fully its new legal framework on religion. The U.S. government removed 

Vietnam from the CPC list in November 2006, on the basis of significant 

progress. Over the past three years, the religious freedom record in Vietnam 

has been mixed. There is continued, albeit slow, progress with regard to 

registration/recognition of religious groups and congregations and more 

freedom to organize religious meetings – even on a large-scale – without 

government interference. However, there are also reports of harassment at 

the local level, including excessive use of force by local officials against 

Roman Catholics in high-profile property disputes. Several Protestant 

congregations in rural areas continue to report harassment, including 

beatings and forced renunciations in some cases. Buddhist monks and nuns 

of the Plum Village order were violently evicted from Bat Nha pagoda in 

September.

In Laos, we have seen modest improvements in religious freedom, 

with the central government easing restrictions on religious practice and 

often intervening to resolve religion-related disputes at the local level. 

Despite this progress, all religious groups operate in an environment in 

which implementation of the law is often arbitrary and minority groups, in 

particular the growing evangelical Protestant community, face varying 

degrees of discrimination and harassment, especially in rural areas.
32

Nationals of the DPRK, Vietnam, China, and Burma have access to 

the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program through Priority 1 individual 

referrals. A significant number of Burmese will be processed in FY 2010 

and FY 2011 under Priority 2. North Korean and Burmese refugees will 

also have access to family reunification processing through Priority 3, 

subject to its resumption.

Voluntary Repatriation

Given the continued, systematic persecution within Burma of ethnic 

minorities, including the de jure statelessness of Rohingya refugees, 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 temporary 

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 the local integration prospects for those refugees 

who will not be resettled. The United States and other donor governments 

continue to engage in a strategic dialogue with the Government of Thailand

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 new refugees 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 

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 2010, the United States processed UNHCR-referred 
33

refugee cases in Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Laos, 

Indonesia, Malaysia, Micronesia, Mongolia, Palau, Singapore, Sri Lanka, 

and Thailand.

FY 2010 U.S. Admissions

We expect to admit more than 17,000 refugees from East Asia in FY 

2010. This will include some 10,000 Burmese Karen and Karenni living in 

camps along the Thai-Burma border, some 6,000 Burmese Chin in Malaysia, 

some 800 Vietnamese processed under the former Humanitarian 

Resettlement Initiative in Vietnam, and a small number of urban refugees of 

various nationalities in the region. As of May 31, 2010, over 6,200 Burmese 

refugee applicants have benefitted from exemptions from terrorism related 

inadmissibilities.

USRAP operations reached a peak in Thailand during the year with 

processing in all nine camps. Working in close consultation with UNHCR 

and the Royal Thai government, we began processing in the last two camps 

Mae La Oon (Site 3) and Mae Ra Ma (Site 4) in Mae Hong Son Province. 

We have not accepted resettlement applications from eligible Burmese 

refugees in Tham Hin camp since June 2009, although applications received 

before the respective application closing dates are still being processed. We 

anticipate announcing the closure of resettlement registration in two 

additional camps in Thailand by the end of the fiscal year. Eligible refugees 

will have 120 days to submit their resettlement applications following the 

announcement.

FY 2011 U.S. Resettlement Program

We propose the admission of 19,000 refugees from East Asia in FY 

2011. This will include more than 5,000 individuals already approved and 

pending departure at the beginning of the year. We will interview Burmese 

refugees living in six camps located in three provinces in Thailand and will 

continue processing in Malaysia, leading to the admission of up to18,500 

refugees from Burma in FY 2011. We also expect the admission of small 

numbers of Vietnamese, North Koreans, Sri Lankans, Chinese, and other 

nationalities from this region.
34

Proposed FY 2011 East Asia Program: 

Approved pipeline from FY 2010 6,600 

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 300 

Priority 2 Groups 12,000 

Priority 3 Family Reunification 100 

Total Proposed Ceiling 19,000

EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

Europe continues to host large populations of refugees and other 

persons whom conflicts over the past two decades or more have left in 

protracted displacement, often in dire conditions. In its 2010-2011 Global 

Appeal, UNHCR reported that there were nearly 4.2 million asylum seekers, 

refugees, IDPs, stateless individuals, or other persons “of concern” 

throughout Europe and Central Asia. Many had fled conflicts outside the 

region, such as in Afghanistan, but the estimates also comprise persons 

claiming persecution within the countries of the former Soviet Union. 

All Eurasian countries except Uzbekistan have acceded to the 1951 

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. 

Nonetheless, in some former Soviet Republics and in Russia, the 

governments provide scant protection to refugees and asylum seekers, and 

public intolerance, including attacks against non-Slavic foreigners, are 

common. Even those nations that are pursuing democratic governance have 

been slow or reluctant to recognize, protect, and integrate refugees and other 

at-risk individuals. UNHCR has been working with many of these 

governments to establish asylum procedures and refugee protection laws. 

Modest progress has been made.
35

According to UNHCR, at the end of 2009 there were approximately 

461,000 refugees and IDPs in the Balkans, almost all of whom have been 

displaced for a decade or longer. An estimated 225,000 persons of this 

population are minorities from Kosovo, most of whom are displaced in 

Serbia. After several years of steady decline in returns to Kosovo, the 

number of returnees doubled from 2008 to 2009. Finding durable solutions 

for the remaining refugees and IDPs in the Balkans continues to be 

problematic, but it is noteworthy that, in late 2009, representatives of the 

Balkan states convened a series of meetings leading to a March 2010 

ministerial to explore means to resolving issues confronting vulnerable, 

displaced persons affected by the conflict of the 1990s. 

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 benefit 

from 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. In addition to those 

eligible under the Lautenberg Amendment, individuals of all nationalities 

throughout the region may be referred for Priority 1 processing. 

Religious Freedom 

Freedom of religion varies widely in Europe and Central Asia. Most 

states regulate religious groups and activities to some degree, by granting socalled “traditional” religious privileges sometimes denied to other, newer 

religious groups. In Eastern Europe, majority religions such as the Orthodox 

Church are often provided with such special treatment and privileges. These 

states sometimes view other religious groups as “dangerous sects and cults.” 

Some states have enacted restrictive legislation to govern the activities of 

foreign missionaries, especially those from Protestant or “nontraditional” 

denominations. In many cases, registration with state bodies has been 

required, not only to establish a group as a legal entity able to rent or own 

space but also to hold religious services, a practice which is not in keeping 

with international covenants on freedom of religion. In some eastern 

European countries, onerous membership and legal requirements restrict 

new religions from enjoying the privileges of traditional ones, such as the 

right to appoint military and prison chaplains and receive state subsidies. 

Restitution of religious properties seized by Communist regimes and the 
36

Nazis is an issue yet to be fully resolved, and, in some countries, progress on 

this issue has been slow and uneven.

Manifestations of anti-Semitism continue throughout the region, 

including demonstrations by extremist groups and vandalism of cemeteries 

and monuments. Most incidents have been in former communist bloc 

countries but a number of western European countries have faced a 

disturbing increase in anti-Semitic acts. Attacks on synagogues and other 

places where religious groups gather have been reported in Russia. The 

Russian government has condemned such acts. In the Caucasus and Central 

Asian states, the remaining small Jewish communities enjoy reasonably 

amicable relations with their Muslim compatriots. Jewish communities from 

Azerbaijan in the Caucasus to Bukhara and Tashkent in Uzbekistan report 

societal and governmental support for their security.

The Russian government has recently been asserting greater control 

over certain minority religious groups. Of great concern are government 

applications of “anti-extremism” laws designed to counter terrorism against 

peaceful religious communities. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have had one of

their local religious organizations dissolved and 52 titles of their religious 

literature banned as “extremist.” In April, the Russian government banned 

the distribution of all issues of their primary publications Awake! and The 

Watchtower, which have been distributed internationally for many years. 

Jehovah’s Witnesses have been subject to police raids, searches, detentions, 

confiscation of literature, and fines, and have been denied access to legal 

counsel. Similar government tactics are being used against Muslim and 

Scientology groups. Additionally, there have been reports of numerous 

attacks on Jehovah’s Witnesses from private citizens. These attacks include 

assaults with knives and guns, beatings, shoving Jehovah’s Witnesses down 

the stairs, and other violent acts. The government has also conducted raids 

on Lutheran and Baptist congregations.

In Turkmenistan, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been subject to increasing

harassment by authorities in the last two years, including detention, 

confiscation of literature, and, in some cases, police beatings. In Azerbaijan 

and Turkmenistan, conscientious objectors to mandatory military service 

have been convicted of criminal activity.
37

In Belarus, government officials have raided and fined unregistered 

religious groups including Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baptists, and other 

Protestants. Two Catholic priests were banned from further religious 

activity. Government officials continue to arrest and prosecute 

conscientious objectors. There are reports that government officials are 

preventing religious groups from renting space to hold worship services.

Observant Muslims across Europe and Central Asia have been treated 

as potential Islamists and accused of membership in banned groups. In some 

countries, there are legal prohibitions against wearing the hijab in certain 

public contexts, such as universities. In others, wearing the hijab or wearing 

beards marks one as an observant Muslim and leads to frequent requests for 

identification documents by the authorities. Muslims in some cities are 

subject to harassment and societal violence. Islamic cemeteries have also 

been desecrated. Followers of theologian Said Nursi have been subject to 

particular scrutiny. NGOs have reported their detention and the confiscation

of literature in Azerbaijan and Russia.

Observant Muslims in the former Soviet Union region have 

experienced mosque closures, detention, prison terms, and the possibility of 

torture, especially in Uzbekistan. Particularly in the case of Central Asia, 

restrictive religion laws have allowed governments to control virtually all 

aspects of religious life, and government officials actively monitor religious 

groups, institutions, and figures. As a result of government abuses, as well 

as arrests and harassment of members of religious groups under 

Uzbekistan’s restrictive religion law, the Secretary of State re-designated 

Uzbekistan a Country of Particular Concern for particularly severe violations 

of religious freedom on January 16, 2009. Since August 2008, Uzbekistan 

has cracked down on the Nur movement associated with Turkish scholar 

Fethullah Gulen, arresting dozens of alleged members, many of whom have 

since been sentenced to six- to12- year prison terms.

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, Kosovar, and UN authorities signed the 

Protocol on Voluntary and Sustainable Return to Kosovo, which seeks 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. 
38

Following the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, the pace of returns 

to Kosovo doubled in 2009 and has continued into 2010. If the political and 

economic situation stabilizes further, returns should increasingly become a 

viable and desirable option for many displaced minorities from Kosovo. In 

March 2010 ministerial discussions, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and

Herzegovina, and Croatia agreed to work together to identify solutions to 

resolve the problems that continue to confront the region’s vulnerable, 

displaced victims of the Balkans war of the early 1990s. In Croatia, recent 

progress in providing housing for returnees may encourage some of the more 

than 60,000 refugees in Serbia to return to their homes.

Local Integration

UNHCR has led efforts to create viable asylum systems and effective 

legal protections for refugees in the Balkans and in the countries that 

emerged from the former Soviet Union. However, ineffective 

implementation of these laws, combined with the history of national 

animosities and xenophobia throughout the region, make effective local 

integration of ethnic minorities difficult for refugees. 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 effectively stateless. In 

Montenegro, the path to citizenship has been particularly slow for those 

displaced from Kosovo, whom the government considers neither refugees 

nor IDPs. The Government of Serbia is implementing integration programs 

for some displaced persons from Kosovo.

Third-Country Resettlement 

The United States and other resettlement countries continue to accept 

refugees from the region. UNHCR has referred and will continue to refer to 

the United States, Canada, and other resettlement countries a number of atrisk individuals fleeing various forms of persecution within the region. 

Jewish emigration to Israel continues, with 6,214 individuals from states of 

the former Soviet Union availing themselves of this opportunity in 2009 

under the United Israel Appeal Program.
39

FY 2010 U.S. Admissions

In FY 2010, we estimate 1,500-2,000 admissions from Europe and 

Central Asia. Religious minorities processed under the Lautenberg 

Amendment from countries of the former Soviet Union constitute a 

significant portion of the caseload. During FY 2010, applicants were 

processed in Almaty, Baku, Bishkek, Chisinau, Kyiv, Valletta, Moscow, 

Timisoara, and Tashkent.

FY 2011 U.S. Resettlement Program

The proposed FY 2011 ceiling for refugees from Europe and Central 

Asia is 2,500. This includes some 650 who will be in the final stage of 

admissions processing at the end of FY 2010, as well as new cases approved 

in FY 2011. 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 2011 Europe & Central Asia Program:

Approved pipeline from FY 2010 850

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 140

Priority 2 Groups 1,000

Priority 3 Family Reunification 10

 

Total Proposed Ceiling 2,000

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

In 2009, the number of refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced 

persons (IDPs), and other people of concern in Latin America and the 

Caribbean totaled over 4 million. The ongoing conflict in Colombia 

generated the most significant numbers of refugees and IDPs in the region. 

Estimates of the number of IDPs in Colombia vary between 3.3 million 
40

(government figure) and 4.9 million (NGO figure). Expanded state presence 

and improved security in cities and towns throughout Colombia have led to a 

decline in internal displacement in the past year, but the cumulative total of 

IDPs continues to grow. The Government of Colombia registered over 

110,000 new IDPs between January and December 2009 – a 47 percent

decline in the number of new displacements registered over the same period 

in 2008. In surrounding countries, there are approximately 400,000 asylum 

seekers and persons in refugee-like situations. More than 55,000 

Colombians have been recognized as refugees in Panama, Ecuador, 

Venezuela, and Costa Rica, according to UNHCR. Ecuador, the country 

with the largest population of Colombian refugees, has an effective asylum 

process in which UNHCR participates. Several other countries in the region 

such as Costa Rica, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, and Panama have 

established asylum procedures. However, the registration and determination 

procedures are often implemented ineffectively. UNHCR is working with 

these countries to improve their asylum processes.

The number of Colombian asylum seekers and persons of concern in 

neighboring countries continues to rise. As of December 2009, there were 

approximately 45,000 Colombian refugees recognized in Ecuador and 

UNHCR estimates there could be another 100,000 people in the country who 

may be in need of international protection. The Government of Ecuador 

launched a 12-month enhanced registration program in March 2009 under 

which mobile teams from the Office of the Directorate General for Refugees 

expeditiously completed the refugee registration, determination, and 

documentation processes for Colombian refugees along the northern border. 

Over 27,000 persons were issued refugee visas during the year-long 

program, which ended in March 2010. This number constitutes 

approximately 50 percent of the refugees recognized in the country since 

2000. The Government of Ecuador is also working with UNHCR to 

improve the normal asylum registration process.

In Panama, there are approximately 1,300 recognized refugees 

(mainly Colombians) and 500 persons with official temporary protected 

status. In Costa Rica, there are approximately 12,000 recognized refugees. 

Costa Rica is working to revise its asylum system, and re-established its 

Refugee Department in March 2010. There are approximately 1,245 

recognized refugees and 12,000 asylum seekers in Venezuela. 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 
41

different countries in the country, the largest numbers from Angola and 

Colombia.

In 2002, the United States began a Priority 1 resettlement program to 

resettle vulnerable Colombian refugees located in Ecuador and Costa Rica. 

Most Colombian refugees have fled the 45-year armed conflict as a result of 

persecution for political opinion by either left-wing guerilla or right-wing 

paramilitary groups. Processing delays that confronted individuals who had 

under duress provided “material support” to the Revolutionary Armed 

Forces of Colombia, National Liberation Army of Colombia, and the United 

Self-Defense Forces of Colombia have been resolved with the issuance of 

exemptions for these inadmissibilities in 2007 and 2008. 

In Haiti, the devastating earthquake that hit the country on January 12 

created a humanitarian disaster that continues to be addressed. Elections for 

the presidency, the senate, national assembly, and other regional posts have 

yet to be scheduled. The United States continues to support UNHCR’s 

efforts to help governments in the Caribbean address the needs of Haitians 

and asylum seekers.

Religious Freedom

In Latin America, religious freedom is widely recognized and 

enjoyed. An exception is Cuba. The Cuban constitution recognizes the right 

of citizens to profess and practice any religious belief within the framework 

of respect for the law. However, the government continues to place 

restrictions on freedom of religion. The Ministry of Interior, through its 

state security apparatus, engages in active surveillance of religious 

institutions. The USRAP is a component of the U.S.-Cuba Migration 

Agreement that allows for the acceptance of Cubans for permanent residence 

in the United States under the Priority 2 category that includes religious 

persecution.

Voluntary Repatriation

Given the threats and violence in Colombia from illegally armed 

groups (non-state actors) and the lack of state presence to provide full 

protection in some areas, UNHCR does not actively promote repatriation of 

Colombian refugees.
42

Local Integration 

The Governments of Ecuador, Costa Rica, Panama, and Venezuela 

have maintained policies that allow Colombians in need of protection to 

obtain asylum and integrate locally. Despite such policies, their capacity to 

review applications and confer refugee status remains limited. As 

mentioned above, the Government of Ecuador conducted a mobile program 

to register and document 27,000 Colombian refugees in the northern border 

area of the country. The regular asylum process in Ecuador, however, 

remained slow with limited accessibility. Additionally, 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. The 

refugee status determination process in Costa Rica has shown improvement 

in recent years, but delays in recognition and documentation still exist in 

some cases. For asylum seekers in Panama, the situation is complicated, as 

the government continues to be reluctant to receive Colombian refugees or 

confer even minimal protection.

PRM 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. UNHCR has established a new field office in the Dominican 

Republic which opened in mid-2010. The principal priorities of the field 

office during the first year of operation will be to support the government in 

re-establishing a functioning domestic asylum procedure, to address gaps in 

refugee documentation and to clear the existing backlog of undecided 

asylum claims.

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 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 in Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Panama. Under the 

“Solidarity Resettlement Program,” a component of the Mexico Plan of 
43

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 limited numbers of Colombian refugees.

The referral of refugees for resettlement out of the Caribbean (other 

than Cuba) historically has been very limited. In FY2009, UNHCR referred 

a group of refugees with mixed nationalities located in Trinidad as well as 

individual cases in Haiti, Jamaica, and the Dominican Republic, who arrived 

in the United States during FY2010.

The United States also facilitates the resettlement in third countries of 

persons interdicted by the U.S. Coast Guard or who enter Guantanamo 

Naval Station illegally and are found by DHS/USCIS to have a well-founded 

fear of persecution or who would likely face torture if repatriated. From 

1996 through 2010, more than 300 such protected persons have been 

resettled to eighteen countries in Latin America, Europe, Australia, and 

Canada. Twelve have been resettled in FY 2010 as of July 31.

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. A substantial backlog of cases 

pending review remains, an unknown number of which are likely ineligible 

for the program. Additional resources are being applied to a review of the 

backlogged cases which will provide greater clarity regarding the size of the 

eligible applicant pool by the end of FY 2011. Upgrades to the refugee 

office in Havana are planned for FY2011 which should support an expanded 

Cultural Orientation program for approved refugees. 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, 

passports, and exit permits needed to depart Cuba. Others are refused exit 

permission by the Cuban government.

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); 
44

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 2010 U.S. Admissions

We anticipate admitting slightly more than 5,000 refugees from Latin 

America and the Caribbean during FY 2010. Cubans comprise the 

overwhelming majority of refugees resettled from the region. Historically, 

most Cuban admissions were former political prisoners and forced labor 

conscripts who served sentences in the 1960s and 1970s. The program was 

expanded in 1991 to include human rights activists, displaced professionals, 

and others with claims of persecution, which currently comprise the majority 

of admissions. In addition, we expect some 200 Colombian refugees to be 

admitted to the United States during FY 2010.

FY 2011 U.S. Resettlement Program

The proposed 5,500 ceiling for Latin America and the Caribbean for 

FY 2011 comprises Cuban refugees eligible for the in-country Priority 2 

program; a small number of UNHCR-referred Priority 1 Colombians; and 

refugees of diverse nationalities located in the Dominican Republic and 

elsewhere in the Caribbean, as well as a small number of Priority 3 family 

reunion cases.

Proposed FY 2011 program for Latin America and the Caribbean:

Approved pipeline from FY 2010 2,850

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 300

Priority 2 In-Country Cubans 2,300

Priority 3 Family Reunification 50

Total Proposed Ceiling 5,500
45

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, and 

Bhutanese. 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.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the 

International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Organization for 

Migration (IOM), 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, mainly to Palestinians, 

Afghans, and some Africans. Other countries in the region have provided 

long-term asylum for Tibetan, Bhutanese, and Sri Lankan refugees. 

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; 

Iranians in Turkey; and Burmese in India.

There is no internationally agreed-upon definitive number of Iraqi 

refugees and internally displaced people due to the fact that they are often 

not registered with UNHCR and are dispersed throughout the region. There 

are some 229,000 Iraqi refugees currently registered with UNHCR in 

neighboring countries and an unknown number of unregistered refugees. 

UNHCR reports that 1.5 million Iraqis displaced by sectarian violence 

following the Samarra Mosque bombing of February 2006 remain internally 

displaced in Iraq. Approximately 35,000 third-country refugees (including 

Palestinians and Iranian Kurds) and 3,800 asylum seekers remain in Iraq.

Despite the voluntary repatriation of over 5.6 million Afghan refugees 

since 2002, Pakistan continues to host approximately 1.7 million and Iran 

approximately 935,000 registered Afghan refugees, many of whom have 

been resident in these countries for decades. Hundreds of thousands of 

Afghans, mostly unaccompanied men, are believed to live and work in 

Pakistan and Iran without documentation. Over 10,000 Afghan refugees and 

asylum seekers are registered with UNHCR in India. Identifying durable 

solutions remains an important component of UNHCR’s strategy in India. 

Integration of long-staying ethnic Afghan refugees, many of whom have 
46

lived in India from 15 to 27 years, is a key element of this strategy. Local 

integration remains a difficult option due to opposition from host countries 

such as Bangladesh, Malaysia, and India.

Thousands of ethnic Nepalis long resident 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 15 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 ethnic Nepalis with legal residency in 

Bhutan, to date none have been permitted to return. Due to concerted 

resettlement efforts commenced in 2008 by the United States and other 

resettlement countries, a third of the original population of 108,000 

Bhutanese refugees in Nepal have departed after spending two decades in 

seven camps in eastern Nepal.

Religious Freedom 

Persecution of religious minorities is common in certain 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 religious minorities, particularly Muslims and 

Christians, are often inadequate. In Afghanistan, religious freedom is 

limited due to constitutional contradictions, legislative ambiguity, and 

deference to Shia interpretations of sharia law.

In Iran, all non-Shia religious groups including Sunni Muslims, 

Bahais, Sufis, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Christians, continue to face 

discrimination, harassment, and arrest.

In some countries in the region, most notably Iran, Saudi Arabia, and 

Egypt, those accused of apostasy are subject to severe governmental 

repression and societal violence. Under these governments’ interpretations 

of sharia, apostates may be denied their civil rights if any member of society 

files an apostasy complaint against the convert. In cases decided by a sharia 

court, judges have annulled the convert’s marriage, transferred child 

custody, conveyed property rights to Muslim family members, deprived 

them of civil rights, and declared them wards of the state without any 

religious identity.
47

Sectarian violence in Iraq has resulted in what UNHCR considers the 

largest dislocation in the Middle East since the Palestinian exodus following 

the creation of the State of Israel. The greatest impact has been on Iraq's 

small religious minority communities. These minorities, including 

Christians, Yezidis, Sabean-Mandaeans, and others, have experienced widescale displacement – some by as much as 90 percent of their population over 

the past seven years. Some 20 percent of registered Iraqi refugees are 

members of religious minorities, a figure significantly 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 forever.

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.

The USRAP provides resettlement access in various ways to refugees 

who suffer religious persecution. The Specter Amendment, first enacted as 

sec. 213, Division E, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 

108-199), provides that Iranian religious minorities designated as category 

members benefit from a reduced evidentiary standard for establishing a wellfounded fear of persecution. They are eligible to apply under Priority 2. 

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 5.6 million Afghan refugees have 

returned, mostly from Pakistan and Iran. Over 4.4 million were assisted by 

UNHCR in the largest repatriation operation in UNHCR’s history. 

However, the era of mass returns has largely ended, with only 278,000 
48

Afghans returning in 2008 and about 54,000 returning in 2009. The massive 

repatriation represents roughly a 20 percent increase in Afghanistan’s total 

population and has taxed the country’s capacity to absorb further refugee 

returns.

In spite of the fact that the tripartite agreement on voluntary 

repatriation has been extended through 2012, it is unlikely that all of the 

remaining 1.7 million registered Afghans will repatriate. Voluntary 

repatriation from Pakistan this year began on March 22, 2010, and as of June 

30, 2010, about 67,000 have been processed for return. UNHCR has 

projected that up to 150,000 will return in 2010. UNHCR and IOM’s 

assessment is that the continuing migration of Afghans in both directions 

across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is part of a larger process of 

economic and social migration that has been occurring for centuries. Many 

of the Afghans who are choosing to stay in Pakistan are no longer seeking 

refuge from violence or persecution. They are, rather, seeking economic 

opportunities, fleeing poverty, visiting family, or remaining in place until 

security conditions and the absorptive capacity for returnees to Afghanistan 

improves. UNHCR is working with the Government of Pakistan and the 

international community to develop policies and programs to encourage 

voluntary returns and to manage the population of Afghans that may remain 

in Pakistan for the longer term. IOM is seeking a greater role in border 

management and in developing regional mechanisms for economic 

migration that would bolster protection for Afghans.

The return prospects of the Afghan population in India have been 

assessed as extremely limited given the profile of the cases. Generally, they 

have no family/social links in their country of origin, which is fundamental 

to their security upon return. Many of the refugees have now married 

Indians, whose integration capacity in Afghanistan is seen as remote given 

the cultural and religious differences between the two countries. For some 

refugees there are heightened security risks and problems for return 

precisely because of their protracted exile in India. Children, particularly 

girls and young women, who have grown up in India in a more liberal 

environment, may be unable to adjust. Thus far in 2010, only 10 Afghans 

have repatriated from non-neighboring countries such as India.
49

Since early 2008, 464,000 IDPs and refugees have returned to Iraq. 

IDPs comprise the vast majority of these returns. Over 85 percent of all 

returns have been to Baghdad and Diyala. 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 assesses that the 

conditions for promoting large-scale return of refugees to Iraq in conditions 

of safety and dignity are not yet in place. Therefore, UNHCR is working 

with Iraqis in neighboring countries on an individual basis to facilitate 

voluntary returns to Iraq. In 2009, some 29,000 Iraqi refugees 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, UNHCR anticipates 

that there may be some growth in demand for repatriation by Tamils 

currently residing in India. Although formal returns are not expected to 

reach significant levels in 2010, we may see an increase in 2011. 

Confirmation of citizenship is one of the key conditions for the voluntary 

return of both Bhutanese refugees and some Tamils in India, and UNHCR is 

working toward this end in both cases. 

Local Integration 

Few countries in the region offer local integration to refugees. The 

Tripartite Agreement between UNHCR and the Governments of Afghanistan 

and Iran expired on March 19, 2008, but an ad hoc agreement remains in 

place. The Tripartite Agreement between UNHCR and the Governments of 

Afghanistan and Pakistan provides for the orderly, voluntary return of 

Afghan refugees. On March 24, 2010, the Government of Pakistan 

approved the extension of the Afghan Management Strategy, which 

officially permits Afghan Proof of Registration (POR) cardholders to remain 

in Pakistan through 2012. Children born in Pakistan to Afghan POR 

cardholders will also be able to register on their parent’s card if under five

years old and with their own POR card if five or older. In partnership with 

the Government of Pakistan and UNDP, UNHCR launched the RefugeeAffected and Hosting Areas initiative in 2009. This five-year program aims 

to address 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. UNHCR has already 

commenced work on over 22 projects under the initiative, which will 
50

eventually be implemented in 21 districts and six urban areas of Baluchistan, 

NWFP/KPk, Sindh, and Punjab Provinces, benefiting some 2.5 million 

Pakistanis and Afghans and strengthening the Government of Pakistan’s 

governance and public service delivery. 

The key to the successful transition from short-term humanitarian 

maintenance to longer-term development is acceptance by the Governments 

of Afghanistan and Pakistan that they are best served by a system of 

managed migration across their border. Progress has been made in this area; 

some within the government of Pakistan have publicly acknowledged that 

some Afghans in Pakistan are likely to stay. The majority of Afghans who 

repatriated in the last few years had fled Taliban rule relatively recently. 

Many of the Afghans remaining in Iran and Pakistan left Afghanistan in the 

early years of the Soviet occupation. More than half were born in exile, and 

74 percent are under age 28. Many of these refugees are unlikely to return 

without strong economic and social incentives. 

Iraqis are still able to obtain visas at the border between Iraq and 

Syria. Visas are routinely valid for three months and renewable by exiting 

and reentering the country. In February 2008, Jordan began requiring Iraqis 

to apply for Jordanian visas in advance of entry. This visa policy 

substantially reduced the number of Iraqis seeking refuge in Jordan. 

Although both governments have permitted Iraqis to remain on a 

temporary basis, local integration of Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan is not 

an option. Iraqis in Syria and Jordan are not legally defined as refugees, but 

rather as visitors. 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. Iraqi 

refugees have also been granted some access to the public health care 

systems. There are significant barriers to procuring legal employment in all 

host countries.

Despite the steadily increasing number of asylum seekers and 

refugees, India does not have a clear national policy for the treatment of 

refugees, and UNHCR has no formal status 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 recognizes and aids certain groups, including Sri Lankan Tamils and 

Tibetans in the 115 settlements for Sri Lankans and 37 settlements for 
51

Tibetans throughout the country. Many Tibetans and Sri Lankan Tamils in 

India are permitted some work opportunities within the informal economy 

and receive some social benefits. India also permits UNHCR to assist other 

so-called urban refugees in New Delhi, primarily Burmese, Afghans, and 

Somalis. 

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 longstaying ethnic Afghan refugees. Naturalization clinics were established to 

support the citizenship process for Hindu and Sikh Afghans, and UNHCR 

had intensified its efforts to ensure that all eligible refugees had submitted 

applications for Indian citizenship by December 31, 2009. Some 600 

Afghans have naturalized, with another 2,000-3,000 currently in the process. 

Third-Country Resettlement

The USRAP anticipates the continued large-scale processing of Iraqis, 

Bhutanese, and Iranians during FY 2011. 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, 

Damascus, Cairo, Istanbul, and Beirut. UNHCR has referred over 11,000 

individuals to the U.S. program in FY 2010 and will continue making 

referrals in coming months. We project the admission of approximately 

17,000 Iraqi refugees during FY2010.

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 some processing locations. 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 or MNF-I in 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. 
52

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 family-based I-130 Immigrant Visa 

Petitions. 

The United States has increased its in-country processing capacity 

nearly 200 percent since establishing an OPE unit in Baghdad in FY 2008. 

Given the security and logistical challenges associated with operating an 

OPE in Iraq, it is likely that in-country processing capacity will remain more 

limited than in neighboring countries. Nonetheless, refugee processing in 

Iraq is a high priority for the United States and we believe it has significant 

potential, particularly to benefit Iraqis associated with U.S. efforts in Iraq. 

The Departments of State and Homeland Security continue to devote 

substantial resources to Iraqi refugee processing. In addition to maintaining 

a robust interview schedule, DHS has developed enhanced security 

screening to ensure the integrity and security of the program. 

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 (Bahais, 

Zoroastrians, Jews, Mandaeans, and Christians) may be processed for U.S. 

resettlement using special procedures authorized by the Government of 

Austria. U.S. law provides a reduced evidentiary standard for Iran’s 

religious minorities, and more than 99 percent of eligible applicants are 

approved for admission to the United States. After nearly a ten-fold increase 

in departures from FY2004 to FY2008, OPE Vienna has experienced a 

significant decrease in new applications. Projected FY 2010 departures 

represent nearly a 35 percent decrease from FY 2008, while the total OPE 

Vienna pipeline has decreased 53 percent over the same time period. The 
53

United States also processes Iranian religious minorities (primarily Bahai) 

and other Iranians in Turkey through special procedures involving fast-track 

refugee status determination and referral by UNHCR. PRM has recently 

provided funding to UNHCR to increase significantly its capacity to refer 

refugees in Turkey for resettlement to the United States and other countries.

Resettlement processing of ethnic Nepali Bhutanese refugees in Nepal 

is continuing smoothly and the United States remains committed to 

considering for resettlement as many refugees as express interest. By the 

end of FY 2010, it is estimated that more than 36,000 Bhutanese refugees 

will have been resettled to the United States and other countries since 2008.

Although U.S. resettlement processing in Pakistan resumed in 2009, 

the number of Afghan refugees referred by UNHCR remains low due to the 

impact of the uncertain security situation on UNHCR and U.S. government

operations. UNHCR has referred for third-country resettlement all of the 

protracted ethnic Afghan refugees in India who cannot naturalize or 

repatriate. UNHCR currently refers some 400 individuals per year from 

India, with priority given to those they deem most vulnerable. The majority 

of referrals are Burmese. We continue to explore modalities for processing 

vulnerable Tibetan refugees in the region.

FY 2010 U.S. Admissions

We estimate the admission of approximately 37,000 refugees from the 

region in FY 2010. These will include over 17,000 Iraqis, over 13,000 

Bhutanese, some 4,000 Iranians, and some 1,000 Afghans. Over 2,700 

exemptions have been issued to Iraqi individuals in the refugee context,

including both exemptions for material support provided under duress and to 

the groups eligible for group exemptions.

FY 2011 U.S. Resettlement Program

The proposed regional ceiling for refugees from the Near East and 

South Asia for FY 2010 is 35,000, including vulnerable Iraqis, Bhutanese, 

Iranians, 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 in Libya are also 

scheduled for processing. 
54

Proposed FY 2011 Near East/South Asia program:

Approved pipeline from FY 2010 25,000

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 5,000

Priority 2 Groups 5,400

Priority 3 Family Reunification 100

Total Proposed Ceiling 35,500
55

TABLE III

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

RESETTLEMENT ACCESS FOR REFUGEES FROM COUNTRIES DESIGNATED BY THE 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE AS COUNTRIES OF PARTICULAR CONCERN*

COUNTRY OF PARTICULAR 

CONCERN

PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3

Eritrea X X X

Sudan X X

China X

Burma X X X

DPRK X X

Iran X X X

Saudi Arabia X

Uzbekistan X X

* Countries currently designated under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, 

as amended. Section 402(b)(1)(A) defines a country of “particular concern” as a 

country that “has engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious 

freedom in that country during the preceding 12 months or since the date of the last 

review of that country”.
56

IV. DOMESTIC IMPACT OF REFUGEE ADMISSIONS

In FY 2009, the USRAP admitted 74,654 refugees from 54 countries. 

More than half were originally from either the countries of Iraq or Burma. 

(See Table IV.)

The demographic characteristics of refugee arrivals from the 20 

largest source countries (representing 100 percent of total arrivals) in FY 

2009 illustrate the variation among refugee groups. The median age of all 

FY 2009 arrivals was 26 years and ranged from 18 years for arrivals from 

Central African Republic to 39 years of age for arrivals from Vietnam. In

FY 2009, 48.4 percent of all arriving refugees were female and 51.6 percent 

of all arriving refugees were male. Males predominated among refugees 

from Sudan (65.9 percent), Eritrea (54.9 percent), and Burma (54.4 percent). 

(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 17.9 percent among Pakistan arrivals to a low of 2.1 percent of those from 

Vietnam. The number of school-aged children (from five to 17 years of age) 

varied from a high of over 49.0 percent of arrivals from Central African 

Republic to a low of 11.8 percent of those from Iran. The number of

working-aged refugees (16 to 64 years of age) varied from a high of 74.8 

percent of those from Iran to a low of 50.9 percent of individuals from 

Burundi. Retirement-aged refugees (65 years or older) ranged from a high 

of 17.1 percent of arrivals from Vietnam to a low of less than one percent of 

those from Pakistan, Palestine, and Rwanda. Of the total arrivals in FY 

2009, some 9.1 percent were under the age of five, 24.7 percent were of 

school age, 65.9 percent were of working age, and 4.2 percent were of 

retirement age. (See Table VI.)

During FY 2009, 67.8 percent of all arriving refugees resettled in 12 

states. The majority were placed in California (15.11 percent), followed by 

Texas (11.00 percent), New York (5.91 percent), Arizona (5.79 percent), 

Florida (5.62 percent), Michigan (4.69 percent), and Georgia (4.38). The 

states of Washington (3.46 percent), Illinois (3.43 percent), North Carolina 

(3.01 percent), Pennsylvania (2.89 percent,) and Virginia (2.47 percent) each 

resettled significant percentages of the total of newly arrived refugees. (See

Table VII.)
57

TABLE IV

Refugee Arrivals By Country of Origin

Fiscal Year 2009

Country of Origin

Arrivals

Number % of Total

Afghanistan 349 0.47%

Angola 8 0.01%

Bhutan 13,452 18.02%

Burma 18,202 24.38%

Burundi 762 1.02%

Cambodia 15 0.02%

Cameroon 4 0.01%

Central African Republic 59 0.08%

Chad 6 0.01%

China 54 0.07%

Colombia 57 0.08%

Congo 293 0.39%

Cuba 4,800 6.43%

Dem. Rep. Congo 1,135 1.52%

Djibouti 3 0.00%

Egypt 7 0.01%

Equatorial Guinea 9 0.01%

Eritrea 1,571 2.10%

Ethiopia 321 0.43%

Former Soviet Union* 1,995 2.67%

Former Yugoslavia** 2 0.00%

Gabon 1 0.00%

Gambia 10 0.01%

Ghana 1 0.00%

Guinea 3 0.00%

Iran 5,381 7.21%

Iraq 18,838 25.23%

Ivory Coast 9 0.01%

Kenya 1 0.00%
58

Korea, North 25 0.03%

Kuwait 7 0.01%

Laos 14 0.02%

Lebanon 1 0.00%

Liberia 385 0.52%

Madagascar (Malagasy Republic) 3 0.00%

Mauritania 16 0.02%

Morocco 1 0.00%

Nepal 7 0.01%

Nigeria 3 0.00%

Pakistan 67 0.09%

Palestine 65 0.09%

Rwanda 111 0.15%

Sierra Leone 51 0.07%

Somalia 4,189 5.61%

Sri Lanka (Ceylon) 33 0.04%

Sudan 683 0.91%

Syria 25 0.03%

Thailand 2 0.00%

Togo 14 0.02%

Uganda 8 0.01%

Vietnam 1,538 2.06%

Yemen 47 0.06%

Zambia 1 0.00%

Zimbabwe 10 0.01%

TOTAL 74,654 100.0%

*Former Soviet Union includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, 

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, 

Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

**Former Yugoslavia includes Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, and 

Yugoslavia.

Source: Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Refugee Processing Center
59

TABLE V

Median Age and Gender of Refugee Arrivals, Fiscal Year 2009

Rank

(# of 

Arrivals) Country of Origin

Refugees

Admitted

Median

Age

%

Females

%

Males

1 Iraq 18,838 27 49.3% 50.7%

2 Burma 18,202 22 45.6% 54.4%

3 Bhutan 13,452 28 49.0% 51.0%

4 Iran 5,381 38 51.6% 48.4%

5 Cuba 4,800 32 49.7% 50.3%

6 Somalia 4,189 20 50.8% 49.2%

7 Former Soviet Union* 1,995 30 50.2% 49.8%

8 Eritrea 1,571 20 45.1% 54.9%

9 Vietnam 1,538 39 49.9% 50.1%

10 Dem. Rep. Congo 1,135 19 49.0% 51.0%

11 Burundi 762 21 49.5% 50.5%

12 Sudan 683 26 34.1% 65.9%

13 Liberia 385 25 51.7% 48.3%

14 Afghanistan 349 24 49.3% 50.7%

15 Ethiopia 321 24 45.8% 54.2%

16 Congo 293 21 49.8% 50.2%

17 Rwanda 111 23 46.8% 53.2%

18 Pakistan 67 21 50.7% 49.3%

19 Palestine 65 24 49.2% 50.8%

20 Central African Republic 59 18 45.8% 54.2%

All Other Countries 458 24 48.3% 51.7%

TOTAL 74,654 26 48.4% 51.6%

*Former Soviet Union includes countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, 

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, 

Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

Source: Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Refugee Processing Center
60

TABLE VI

Select Age Categories of Refugee Arrivals, Fiscal Year 2009

Rank

(# of 

Arrivals) Country of Origin

Under 

5 Yrs

School 

Age 

(5-17)

Working 

Age

(16-64)

Retirement 

Age

(=or > 65)

1 Iraq 9.9% 23.9% 65.9% 3.8%

2 Burma 12.4% 28.4% 62.5% 1.2%

3 Bhutan 5.8% 22.3% 71.1% 4.8%

4 Iran 2.3% 11.8% 74.8% 13.6%

5 Cuba 4.9% 20.4% 72.3% 5.4%

6 Somalia 13.4% 32.9% 56.5% 1.2%

7 Former Soviet Union* 7.6% 27.0% 61.0% 9.0%

8 Eritrea 16.5% 23.2% 62.3% 0.5%

9 Vietnam 2.1% 18.7% 65.5% 17.1%

10 Dem. Rep. Congo 13.0% 41.4% 51.6% 1.0%

11 Burundi 14.7% 38.2% 50.9% 2.0%

12 Sudan 9.1% 25.0% 67.9% 0.9%

13 Liberia 6.2% 34.3% 61.8% 4.4%

14 Afghanistan 7.4% 29.8% 67.9% 0.6%

15 Ethiopia 7.8% 24.3% 70.7% 1.6%

16 Congo 11.3% 35.5% 58.4% 0.7%

17 Rwanda 5.4% 34.2% 65.8% 0.0%

18 Pakistan 17.9% 29.9% 55.2% 0.0%

19 Palestine 15.4% 21.5% 66.2% 0.0%

20 Central African Republic 13.6% 49.2% 40.7% 1.7%

All Other Countries 9.2% 24.5% 67.0% 2.0%

TOTAL 9.1% 24.7% 65.9% 4.2%

*Former Soviet Union includes countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, 

Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, 

Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

NOTE: Totals may exceed 100 percent due to overlapping age categories.

Source: Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Refugee Processing Center
61

TABLE VII

Refugee Arrivals By State of Initial Resettlement, Fiscal Year 2009

STATE

Refugee 

Arrivals

Amerasian 

Arrivals

Total

Arrivals 

% of 

Total Arrivals 

to U.S.

Alabama 187 0 187 0.25%

Alaska 116 0 116 0.16%

Arizona 4,317 3 4,320 5.79%

Arkansas 18 0 18 0.02%

California 11,274 4 11,278 15.11%

Colorado 1,735 0 1,735 2.32%

Connecticut 349 0 349 0.47%

Delaware 4 0 4 0.01%

District of Columbia 58 0 58 0.08%

Florida 4,193 0 4,193 5.62%

Georgia 3,270 2 3,272 4.38%

Hawaii 8 0 8 0.01%

Idaho 1,183 0 1,183 1.58%

Illinois 2,560 0 2,560 3.43%

Indiana 1,249 0 1,249 1.67%

Iowa 901 0 901 1.21%

Kansas 361 0 361 0.48%

Kentucky 1,722 0 1,722 2.31%

Louisiana 372 13 385 0.52%

Maine 259 0 259 0.35%

Maryland 899 0 899 1.20%

Massachusetts 1,679 0 1,679 2.25%

Michigan 3,500 0 3,500 4.69%

Minnesota 994 0 994 1.33%

Mississippi 23 0 23 0.03%

Missouri 1,334 0 1,334 1.79%

Montana 7 0 7 0.01%

Nebraska 816 0 816 1.09%

Nevada 589 0 589 0.79%

New Hampshire 558 0 558 0.75%

New Jersey 1,108 0 1,108 1.48%

New Mexico 163 0 163 0.22%
62

STATE

Refugee 

Arrivals

Amerasian 

Arrivals

Total

Arrivals 

% of 

Total Arrivals 

to U.S.

New York 4,411 1 4,412 5.91%

North Carolina 2,235 12 2,247 3.01%

North Dakota 447 0 447 0.60%

Ohio 1,589 0 1,589 2.13%

Oklahoma 175 0 175 0.23%

Oregon 704 0 704 0.94%

Pennsylvania 2,155 0 2,155 2.89%

Rhode Island 166 0 166 0.22%

South Carolina 127 0 127 0.17%

South Dakota 536 0 536 0.72%

Tennessee 1,492 0 1,492 2.00%

Texas 8,195 17 8,212 11.00%

Utah 1,265 0 1,265 1.69%

Vermont 332 0 332 0.44%

Virginia 1,842 0 1,842 2.47%

Washington 2,581 0 2,581 3.46%

West Virginia 21 0 21 0.03%

Wisconsin 523 0 523 0.70%

Total 74,602 52 74,654 100.0%

Note: Arrival figures do not reflect secondary migration.

Source: Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Refugee Processing Center
63

TABLE VIII

ESTIMATED COSTS OF REFUGEE PROCESSING, MOVEMENT, AND RESETTLEMENT

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 ($ MILLIONS)

AGENCY

ESTIMATED

FY 2010

(BY 

DEPARTMENT)

ESTIMATED 

FY 2011

(BY DEPARTMENT)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

 Refugee Processing $22.9 $23.1

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

 Refugee Admissions $394.4* $416** 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families,

Office of Refugee Resettlement

 Refugee Resettlement $582.0 *** $670.0 ***

TOTAL $998.2 $1,109.1 

The estimated FY 2011 figures above reflect the President’s FY 2011 Budget request and do not 

include carryover funds from FY 2010 which will be determined at the end of FY 2010.

* Includes FY 2010 MRA appropriation of $324 million, $21.3 million in carry-forward from FY 

2009, $45.6 million projected IOM loan collections/carry-forward, and approximately $3.5 

million in FY 2009 recoveries.

** Includes FY 2011MRA budget request of $377 million, $32 million in IOM loan 

collections/carry-forward, and projected $7 million in recoveries during FY2011.

*** 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, Transitional Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, or Supplemental Security Income programs. 
64

TABLE IX

UNHCR Resettlement Statistics by Resettlement Country

CY 2009 Admissions

RESETTLEMENT 

COUNTRY TOTAL

PERCENT OF TOTAL

RESETTLED

United States* 61,832 73.49%

Australia 6,720 7.99%

Canada 6,518 7.75%

Germany 2,064 2.45%

Sweden 1,787 2.12%

Norway 1,276 1.52%

United Kingdom 938 1.11%

Finland 706 0.84%

New Zealand 675 0.80%

Denmark 463 0.55%

Netherlands 341 0.41%

Italy 191 0.23%

Ireland 186 0.22%

France 158 0.19%

Chile 66 0.08%

Belgium 54 0.06%

Other** 160 0.19%

TOTAL 84,135 100.00

*Includes departures to the U.S. of individuals referred to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program 

by UNHCR.

**Departures to all other resettlement countries.