PROPOSED REFUGEE ADMISSIONS

FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2013

REPORT TO THE CONGRESS

SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TO THE

COMMITTEES ON THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATE

AND

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

IN FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF

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

OF THE

IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

 
i

INTRODUCTION

This Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2013: Report to the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

estimated cost of their movement and resettlement;

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

of their admission to the United States; 1

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

the resettlement of such refugees;

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

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

States; and

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

members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 402(b) of the IRFA.

 

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

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

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

FOREWORD

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

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

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

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

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

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

hope and provides opportunity for tens of thousands of persons each year. 

The support and assistance that average American citizens provide to these 

newcomers greatly helps with their integration into our country. Refugees 

add to America’s vitality and diversity by making substantial contributions 

to our economic and cultural life. 

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

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

solutions (repatriation or local integration in the country of refuge) are not viable 

options. Traditionally, the USRAP offers resettlement to refugees regardless of 

their location, national origin, health status, occupational skills, or level of 

educational attainment.

Increased Diversity

In the early years, the program was characterized by large numbers of 

refugees from a limited number of countries. Many of the resettled refugees had 

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

nature of the program has changed. The United States has worked closely with the 

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to make third country 

resettlement viable for increasing numbers from a broader representation of the 

world’s 15.4 million refugees. The USRAP is more diverse than ever, admitting 

refugees of over 69 nationalities who began their journeys in some 92 countries. 

In FY 2012, the top three countries of origin are Bhutan, Burma and Iraq, and these 

are expected to be the top three in FY 2013.

Helping the Hard-to-Reach and the Especially Vulnerable

The Administration has worked closely with the Congress to invest the 

resources necessary to reach the most desperate populations who may be small in 

number yet are located in less accessible places. This year, for example, staff 

representing the Departments of State and Homeland Security began processing 

refugees who fled Libya during fighting in the 2011 revolution against Qadhafi and 

sought protection just across the Tunisian and Egyptian borders. Through efforts 
iii

such as this, the United States ensures that the USRAP is consistent with 

humanitarian principles.

During the past year, the USRAP has helped 

many of the world’s most vulnerable refugees, 

who have lived in protracted situations for years, 

uncertain about their fate and unable to develop 

their potential. These include survivors of torture 

or gender based violence, and lesbian, gay, 

bisexual, or transgender individuals. 

Improvements to UNHCR’s Global Program

In 2011 the United States, led by the 

Department of State, served as the chair of the 

UNHCR-sponsored Working Group on 

Resettlement and Annual Tripartite Consultations 

on Resettlement. Under the U.S. chairmanship, 

we worked to expand the number of resettlement 

slots worldwide, improve the quality of 

resettlement throughout the world, and bolster 

international response to emergency situations. 

Efforts to expand the number of nations 

involved in the resettlement of refugees have been 

successful. In recent years, countries without a 

history of resettling refugees have stepped forward 

and established programs. These countries include 

Japan, Paraguay, Romania, Uruguay, the Czech 

Republic, Portugal, and Belgium.

For several years the U.S. government has 

provided financial support to countries in Latin 

America to support their efforts to initiate and 

build sustainable resettlement programs. This 

effort focuses largely on the resettlement of 

Colombian refugees in countries that have not 

traditionally resettled refugees.

“On this World Refugee Day, the United 

States joins the international community 

in recognizing the nearly 15 million 

refugees worldwide, and millions more 

internally displaced people. We honor 

the dignity, courage, and determination 

of these men, women and children who 

have fled persecution and violence in 

their homelands and the commitment and 

generosity of the countries and 

organizations that provide them 

protection and assistance during this 

difficult time.

While we work to promote lasting peace 

and stability and human rights around 

the world, so that these refugees may one 

day return to their countries in safety and 

dignity, we know that for some voluntary 

return may not be possible. For these 

refugees social, economic, and legal 

integration in their country of asylum not 

only provides opportunities for them to 

begin rebuilding their lives, but also for 

the contribution of their knowledge, 

talents, and skills to be fully realized. 

Americans know the benefits of these 

valuable contributions firsthand. Since 

1975, we have welcomed more than 3 

million refugees from all over the world 

and continue to lead the world in refugee 

resettlement.

Together with the Office of the United 

Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

and the international community, we are 

committed to protecting the world’s 

refugees, mitigating their suffering, and 

working to help find ways for them to live 

in dignity and peace.”

President Barack Obama

June 20, 2012

World Refugee Day
iv

UNHCR Emergency Transit Centers

As mentioned above, the U.S. approach to 

resettlement also includes measures to assist 

people in urgent need. In support of this objective, 

the USRAP has made greater use of Emergency 

Transit Centers (ETCs) established by UNHCR in 

Romania, Slovakia, and the Philippines to 

interview and screen applicants for resettlement. 

In FY 2011, the State Department moved 211 

individuals to the United States via these ETCs, 

which are an important tool for protecting 

vulnerable refugees in insecure or otherwise 

challenging circumstances. As is the case for most 

countries with large-scale 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. On a case-by-case basis, individual 

applicants in need of expedited handling are 

processed on an accelerated schedule. ETCs can 

be particularly useful for interviewing individuals 

in a protected environment.

The U.S. government continues to provide 

policy advice and diplomatic support for these 

centers. Because the centers are also used by other 

resettlement countries, they help promote greater 

responsibility sharing for resettlement among other nations.

Enhancing America’s Security while Welcoming Bona Fide Refugees

In the last several years, the USRAP has incorporated additional security 

enhancements to safeguard the resettlement program from fraud and national 

security risks. These changes led to delays in bringing refugees to the 

United States and the delays, in turn, resulted in a decreased number of refugee 

arrivals in FY 2011 and 2012. In FY 2010, the United States admitted over 73,000 

refugees. That number dipped to just over 56,000 in FY 2011 and this year’s 

admissions total will be only slightly higher. Strides have been made throughout 

FY 2012 to improve interagency cooperation and streamline other parts of the 

process so that bona fide refugees gain entry to the United States. Because

improvements to the security checks were not implemented until March 2012, 

refugee arrivals lagged in the early part of the fiscal year and began to increase in

“The United States joins the 

international community in 

commemorating the courage and 

determination of millions of refugees 

around the globe. The United States is 

strongly committed to protecting and 

assisting refugees and we offer 

resettlement to more refugees each year 

than all other countries in the world 

combined. Since 1975, more than three 

million refugees have made new homes 

in the United States, and nearly half of 

them have become U.S. citizens.

Refugees are contributing in ways large 

and small to business, academia, the arts, 

science and technology. Today we 

celebrate the success of refugees who 

have built new lives here and in other 

resettlement countries, but we also 

recognize the millions of refugees who 

remain displaced in camps, cities, and 

rural settlements around the world. We 

are proud to support the efforts of the 

United Nations High Commissioner for 

Refugees and the many other 

organizations that work on behalf of 

refugees worldwide, and recommit 

ourselves to provide protection and

assistance to some of the world’s most 

vulnerable people.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

June 20, 2012

World Refugee Day
v

May 2012. Since then, arrivals have steadily risen. Increases are expected to 

continue in August and September and arrival numbers in FY 2013 should be 

closer to the proposed ceiling.

The Administration continued to work over the past year to address the 

admission of refugees who are affected by the broad definitions of “terrorist 

activity” and “terrorist organization” under U.S. immigration law but whose 

admission to the United States would not compromise our national security and 

would be consistent with U.S. foreign policy interests. After interagency 

consultations on the exercise of the statutory exemption authority to allow certain 

refugees and other categories of immigrants to receive immigration benefits, 

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano authorized U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) to exempt individuals on a case-by-case basis for 

the provision of medical care under certain circumstances.

In addition, two new group-based exercises of the exemption authority were 

signed by Secretary Napolitano during the year that authorize USCIS to exempt 

certain individuals who a) had activities and associations with the Kosovo 

Liberation Army or b) were involved in the 1991 Iraqi uprisings against the 

Saddam Hussein regime. Most significantly, Secretary Napolitano also signed an 

exercise of her exemption authority for applicants with existing immigration 

benefits, such as asylees and refugees in the United States. (The exemption also 

applies to beneficiaries of I-730 relative petitions filed at any time.) Although the 

exemption does not apply to refugee and asylum applicants, and contains important 

carve outs for problematic groups and activities, it will allow USCIS to release up 

to an estimated 75 percent of the cases currently on hold and proceed with the 

adjudications of the underlying benefit applications. The majority of the affected 

applicants whose cases will be released for adjudication are asylees and refugees 

with pending applications for legal permanent resident status, or “green cards.”

Those who are granted the exemption will be able to continue down the path to full 

U.S. citizenship.

Ensuring a Suitable Welcome

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

Placement grant from $900 to $1,800. This grant is intended to help cover the 

costs of a refugee’s initial arrival in the United States. This step recognized that 

the grant amount was insufficient and had not kept pace with rising costs. The 

doubling of this grant was undertaken with the approval of and support from 

Congress. In FY 2012 the per capita grant increased again to $1,850 in line with

realistic estimates of needs.
vi

In FYs 2011 and 2012, the Department of State implemented a new policy

that grants resettlement agencies a guaranteed minimum amount of funding so that 

they can manage their workforce and provide quality reception and placement 

services to arriving refugees even if a lower than expected number of refugees are 

admitted or if there are unavoidable delays in arrivals. 

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

Department, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of 

Refugee Resettlement (ORR) funds longer-term programs that provide benefits and 

services. These programs assist refugees to find employment and thus reach 

economic self-sufficiency and social integration as soon as possible.

The State Department collaborated with resettlement agencies and state 

refugee health coordinators to promote partnership among state and local 

stakeholders regarding the pre- and post-arrival planning for refugees with 

complex medical conditions requiring immediate care upon arrival in the United 

States. The Administration will continue to explore ways of ensuring that refugees 

are able to integrate successfully in the United States after their arrival.

Resettlement as a Key Part of an Overall Approach

Overseas, we continue to use resettlement as one part of an overall approach 

that aims to demonstrate American commitment and leadership and promote more 

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

(c) other resettlement countries.

UNHCR has identified six priority situations where it believes third-country 

resettlement would be the key to unlocking other measures to help refugees stuck 

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

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

Iranians in Turkey; Afghans in Iran; and Somalis in Dadaab, Kenya. We expect to 

play a role in two other priority situations, Colombians in Ecuador and Afghans in 

Pakistan, as UNHCR builds resettlement capacity. In addition, we continue to 

build the capacity of new resettlement countries and thus create more resettlement 

slots for vulnerable refugees. 

The State Department reached agreement last year with both Uruguay and 

Bulgaria to provide needed technical and program support for their new 

resettlement programs. This support will come from Executive branch agencies as 

well as American NGOs. Uruguay recently announced a small expansion of its 

annual quota, a welcome step and a signal to other emerging resettlement countries 

in the region that even small countries can start and build up resettlement 

programs.
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction i

Foreword ii

I. OVERVIEW OF U.S. REFUGEE POLICY 1

II. REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM FOR FY 2013 5

Proposed Ceilings 5

Unallocated Reserve 6

Admissions Procedures 6

Eligibility Criteria 6

Priority 1: Individual Referrals 7

Priority 2: Group Referrals 8

FY 2013 Priority 2 Designations 9

Priority 3: Family Reunification Cases 11

FY 2013 Priority 3 Nationalities 13

Visas 93: Family Reunification Following to Join 13

DHS/USCIS Refugee Adjudications 14

The Eligibility Determination 14

Background Checks 15

Processing Activities of the Department of State 16

Overseas Processing Services 16

Cultural Orientation 16

Transportation 18

Reception and Placement (R&P) 18

Office of Refugee Resettlement 19

III. REGIONAL PROGRAMS 20

Africa 21

Religious Freedom 22

Voluntary Repatriation 23

Local Integration 24

Third-Country Resettlement 25

FY 2012 U.S. Admissions 26

FY 2013 U.S. Resettlement Program 26
viii

East Asia 27

Religious Freedom 30

Voluntary Repatriation 30

Local Integration 30

Third-Country Resettlement 31

FY 2012 U.S. Admissions 31

FY 2013 U.S. Resettlement Program 31

Europe and Central Asia 32

Religious Freedom 33

Voluntary Repatriation 34

Local Integration 35

Third-Country Resettlement 35

FY 2012 U.S. Admissions 35

FY 2013 U.S. Resettlement Program 35

Latin America and the Caribbean 36

Religious Freedom 37

Voluntary Repatriation 38

Local Integration 38

Third and In-Country Resettlement 39

FY 2012 U.S. Admissions 40

FY 2013 U.S. Resettlement Program 40

Near East and South Asia 41

Religious Freedom 42

Voluntary Repatriation 44

Local Integration 45

Third-Country Resettlement 48

FY 2012 U.S. Admissions 50

FY 2013 U.S. Resettlement Program 50

IV. DOMESTIC IMPACT OF REFUGEE ADMISSIONS 51
ix

LIST OF TABLES

Page

I. Refugee Admissions in FY 2011 and FY 2012, 5

Proposed Refugee Admissions by Region for FY 2013

II. Proposed FY 2013 Regional Ceilings by Priority 20

III. Refugee Arrivals by Country of Origin, FY 2011 52

IV. Median Age and Gender of Refugee Arrivals, FY 2011 54

V. Select Age Categories of Refugee Arrivals, FY 2011 55

VI. Refugee Arrivals by State of Initial Resettlement, FY 2011 56

VII. Estimated Funding of Refugee Processing, Movement, and 58

Resettlement FY 2012 and FY 2013

VIII. UNHCR Resettlement Statistics by Resettlement Country, 59

CY 2011
1

I. OVERVIEW OF U.S. REFUGEE POLICY 

At the end of 2011, the estimated refugee population worldwide stood at 

15.4 million, with 10.4 million receiving protection or assistance from UNHCR. 

The United States actively supports efforts to provide protection, assistance, and 

durable solutions to these refugees, as these measures fulfill our humanitarian 

interests and further our foreign policy and national security interests. Under the 

authority of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, as amended, the 

United States contributes to the programs of UNHCR, the International Committee 

of the Red Cross, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United 

Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, 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 are used to address the legal and 

physical protection needs of refugees and furnish basic assistance such as water, 

sanitation, food, health care, shelter, education, and other services. The United 

States monitors these programs to ensure the most effective use of resources, 

maximizing humanitarian impact for the beneficiaries. 

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

voluntary return to their homeland as their preferred solution. During FY 2012, the 

United States continued to support voluntary repatriation programs around the 

world. Refugee repatriation operations brought refugees home to Afghanistan, 

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

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

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

countries.

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

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

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

protect refugees by allowing them to integrate into local communities. The State 

Department further promotes local integration by funding programs to enhance

refugee self-sufficiency and support community-based social services. Afghans in 

India, Burundians in Tanzania, Eritreans in Sudan, Liberians, and Sierra Leoneans 

in seven countries across West Africa, and Colombians in Ecuador, Costa Rica, 

Panama, and Venezuela are all groups that may be able to integrate in the places 

where they are living now because opportunities for local integration have recently 

become possible.
2

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

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

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

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

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

and reduce statelessness, including addressing gaps in citizenship laws and 

promoting fair application of those laws. U.S. contributions to UNHCR’s core 

budget support efforts to prevent and address statelessness in Burma, Kuwait, 

Nepal, South Africa, South Sudan, Turkmenistan, and elsewhere, among other 

programs. 

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

U.S. leadership while encouraging other countries to do more to help stateless 

people and refugees stuck in protracted situations. This approach is reflected in the 

current resettlement of Rohingya refugees from Burma, as well as in past 

resettlement of Meskhetian Turks. PRM also uses diplomacy to mobilize other 

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

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

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

include U.S. sponsorship of the June 2012 UN Human Rights Council (UNHCR) 

resolution on women’s and children’s rights to nationality, as well as Secretary 

Clinton’s Women’s Nationality Initiative. 

The United States and UNHCR also recognize resettlement in third 

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

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

is the best, and perhaps only, alternative. For example, the United States 

encourages UNHCR to refer for resettlement refugees who are also stateless, 

even if they are located in their country of habitual residence, when other 

durable solutions are not possible.

The U.S. government has for more than a decade provided financial support 

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

staffing complements and facility construction. As a result of this initiative, 

UNHCR has substantially increased referrals to the United States and other 

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

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

needs and allow qualified NGOs to refer refugee applicants to the program.

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

number of countries active in resettlement. In 2011, UNHCR referred refugees to 

25 countries for resettlement consideration. Over 90 percent were referred to the 
3

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

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

Germany, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Portugal, 

Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, and the United 

Kingdom. 

While the overall number of refugees referred by UNHCR and the 

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

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

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

availability of funds. Some 70 percent of UNHCR-referred refugees who were 

resettled in 2011 were resettled in the United States. This was a decrease from 74 

percent in 2010 (see Table VIII).

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

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

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

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

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

largest single donor to UNHCR, providing nearly $700 million in FY 2011. 

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

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

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

integration or third country resettlement are options offered to those in need. In 

certain locations, the prompt resettlement of politically sensitive cases has helped 

defuse regional tensions. In the case of refugees fleeing fighting in Libya, the 

United States was willing to resettle refugees who had fled to Tunisia and Egypt.

This action helped keep borders open for refugees and helped relieve pressure on 

these two countries during their own periods of political change. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

refugees by U.S. officials are often conducted in remote locations and are geared 

toward populations in greatest need of third country resettlement opportunities.
4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

discretionary grants to provide cash and medical assistance, employment and 

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

refugees. 

A number of factors create challenges for resettlement agencies striving to 

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

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

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

improve overseas cultural orientations, including through curricula review and 

teacher training. In FY 2011 we piloted English as a Second Language classes for 

some refugees in Kenya, Thailand, and Nepal. By introducing the study of English 

overseas, these classes are intended to provide basic English competency and 

promote continued language learning after arrival in the United States. In addition, 

there is a shortage of affordable housing available in many U.S. cities and towns.

High U.S. unemployment rates are a challenge to the successful resettlement of 

refugees. The Departments of State and Health and Human Services are working 

closely with states, resettlement agencies, NGOs, and service providers on further 

adjustments to help refugees in the United States.
5

REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM FOR FY 2013

PROPOSED CEILINGS

TABLE I

REFUGEE ADMISSIONS IN FY 2011 AND FY 2012,

PROPOSED REFUGEE ADMISSIONS BY REGION FOR FY 2013

2

REGION

FY 2011

ACTUAL 

ARRIVALS

FY 2012

CEILING

FY 2012

PROJECTED 

ARRIVALS

PROPOSED 

FY2013

CEILING

Africa 7,685 12,000 9,500 12,000

East Asia 17,367 18,000 15,000 17,000

Europe and Central Asia 1,228 2,000 1,000 2,000

Latin America/Caribbean 2,976 5,500 2,500 5,000

Near East/South Asia 27,168 35,500 30,000 31,000

Regional Subtotal 56,424 73,000 58,000 67,000

Unallocated Reserve 3,000 3,000

Total 56,424 76,000 58,000 70,000

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 2013

proposal recommends continuing such in-country processing for specified groups 

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

requested by a U.S. ambassador in any location in the world may also be 

considered, with the understanding that they will only be referred to the USRAP 

following Department of State consultation with DHS/USCIS.

 

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

to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program elements.
6

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

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

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

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

consideration. PRM coordinates within the Department of State, as well as with 

DHS/USCIS and other agencies, in carrying out this responsibility.

Section 207(a)(3) of the INA states that the 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:

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

circumstances and apparent need for resettlement;

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

by virtue of their circumstances and apparent need for resettlement;

Priority 3 – Individual cases from designated nationalities granted access 

for purposes of reunification with anchor family members already in the 

United States.

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

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

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

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

below.)

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

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

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

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

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

Applicants who are eligible for access within the established priorities are 

presented to DHS/USCIS officers for interview.

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

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

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

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

priorities, they all undergo the same processing steps. 

PRIORITY 1 – INDIVIDUAL REFERRALS

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

nationality3, usually with compelling protection needs, for whom resettlement 

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

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

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

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

Some NGOs providing humanitarian assistance in locations where there are large 

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

and have been designated eligible to provide Priority 1 referrals. 

Process for Priority 1 Individual Referral Applications

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

appropriate Regional Refugee Coordinator, who forwards the referrals to the 

appropriate Resettlement Support Center (RSC4) for case processing and 

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

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

referrals. 

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

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

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

(USCIS) concur. In some cases, a Department of State referral to the Department 

of Homeland Security for “Significant Public Benefit Parole” (SPBP) may be a 

more appropriate option.

 

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

may be granted access to the USRAP.

4

Formerly known as Overseas Processing Entities (OPEs)
8

PRIORITY 2 – GROUP REFERRALS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

access and predefined group access, normally upon the recommendation of 

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

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

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

persecution in the future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

application process. Applicants must demonstrate that they meet specified criteria 

to establish eligibility for inclusion.

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

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

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

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

minorities and Iraqis with links to the United States. 

The Resettlement Support Center (RSCs) responsible for handling openaccess 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.
9

In contrast to an open-access group, a predefined 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 bio data of eligible refugee 

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

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

impracticable, potentially harmful to applicants due to delays, or 

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

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

conserve scarce resources, particularly for UNHCR. Predefined group referrals 

with clear, well-defined eligibility criteria and several methods for cross-checking 

group membership can serve as a fraud deterrent as well, preventing non-group 

members from gaining access to the USRAP by falsely claiming group 

membership. It can also speed the resettlement process in cases where immediate 

protection concerns are present.

FY 2013 Priority 2 Designations

In-country processing programs

The following ongoing programs that process individuals still in their 

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

Eurasia and the Baltics

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

Catholic and Orthodox religious adherents identified in the Lautenberg 

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

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

renewal of the Lautenberg Amendment these individuals are considered under a 

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

Cuba

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

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

(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.
10

Iraqis Associated with the United States 

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

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

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

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

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

Groups of Humanitarian Concern outside the Country of Origin 

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

undergoing processing with significant arrivals anticipated during FY 2013. 

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

Ethnic Minorities and others from Burma in camps in Thailand

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

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

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

Ethnic Minorities from Burma in Malaysia

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

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

resettlement are eligible for processing. 

Bhutanese in Nepal

Under this existing Priority 2 designation, Bhutanese refugees registered by 

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

processing. 

Iranian Religious Minorities

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment”).

Iraqis Associated with the United States 

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

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

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

family members of such employees, as well as beneficiaries of approved I-130 
11

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

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

PRIORITY 3 – FAMILY REUNIFICATION 

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

designated nationalities who have immediate family members in the United States 

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

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

nationalities eligible for processing under this priority. The PRM Assistant 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

determining which nationalities should be eligible.

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.

The following family members of the U.S.-based anchor have traditionally 

qualified for inclusion on the case: spouses, unmarried children under 21, and/or 

parents. Qualifying anchors are persons who were admitted to the United States as 

refugees 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. 
12

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

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

individual:

1) lived in the same household as the qualifying family member in the 

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

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

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

3) demonstrates exceptional and compelling humanitarian circumstances 

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

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

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

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

refugee.

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

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

locations due to indications of extremely high rates of fraud identified through 

pilot DNA testing. Further, in October 2008, PRM suspended the acceptance of 

AORs of all nationalities while PRM and DHS/USCIS examined whether

additional procedures could be incorporated into P-3 processing to detect and deter 

fraud in the future. 

In FY 2013, we will resume P-3 processing with a newly approved AOR 

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

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

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

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

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

agency partners to ensure they are aware of the changes to the form and the P-3 

program, and have provided training so that they can educate their own affiliate 

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

overseas RSCs to ensure that we will have rigorous DNA collection and chain of 

custody procedures in place. Given the high rate of claimed relationship fraud we 

saw in the past incarnation of the P-3 program, we will be monitoring the program 

closely in FY 2013 for any indication of new attempts at such fraud.
13

FY 2013 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

Haiti

Iran

Iraq

Republic of Congo (ROC)

Somalia

South Sudan

Sri Lanka

Sudan

Uzbekistan

Zimbabwe

VISA 93 – FAMILY REUNIFICATION FOLLOWING-TO-JOIN PETITIONS

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

may request following-to-join benefits for his or her spouse and 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 Petition5 with DHS/USCIS for each eligible family 

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

 

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

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

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

in the number of refuges admitted annually.
14

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

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

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

to the United States. These interviews are not refugee adjudications. The 

beneficiaries are not required to demonstrate persecution claims, as they derive 

their status from the refugee relative in the United States who filed the petition. 

Beneficiaries of I-730 petitions may be processed within their country of origin or 

in other locations. In 2011, USCIS and the Department of State launched a pilot 

program to test new procedures to increase the efficiency, consistency, and security 

of overseas processing of I-730 Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions. The pilot is 

being further expanded in 2012 and will eventually be implemented worldwide. 

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

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

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

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

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

P-3 process does.

DHS/USCIS REFUGEE ADJUDICATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

resources and flexibility to respond to an increasingly diversified refugee 

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

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

The Eligibility Determination

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

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

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

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

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

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. As 
15

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 as a refugee 

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 applicants may be exempted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

credibility and claim. 

Background Checks

All refugee applicants are required to undergo background security checks. 

Security checks include biographic name checks for all refugee applicants and 

biometric (fingerprint) checks for refugee applicants aged 14 to 79. PRM, through 

its overseas Resettlement Support Centers, initiates required name checks, while 

USCIS is responsible for collecting fingerprint data for screening. Refugee 

applicants must clear all required security checks prior to final approval of their 

application.

Last fiscal year, the USRAP implemented an enhanced security check 

requirement for all refugee applicants. While implementing the enhanced check 

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

disrupted, and admissions levels remained low until interagency coordination and 

processing procedures were improved. These improvements resulted in increased 

refugee admissions levels beginning in May 2012, and admissions levels are 

expected to continue at these higher levels in FY 2013. 
16

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 RSC that assists in 

the processing of refugees for admission to the United States. RSC staff pre-screen 

applicants to determine preliminarily if they qualify for one of the applicable 

processing priorities and to prepare cases for DHS/USCIS adjudication. The RSCs 

assist applicants in completing documentary requirements and schedule 

DHS/USCIS refugee eligibility interviews. If an applicant is conditionally 

approved for resettlement, RSC staff guide the refugee through post-adjudication 

steps, including obtaining medical screening exams and attending cultural 

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

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

United States.

In FY 2012, NGOs (Church World Service, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, 

and International Rescue Committee) worked under cooperative agreements with 

PRM as RSCs at locations in Austria, Kenya (covering sub-Saharan Africa), and 

Thailand (covering East Asia). International organizations and NGOs (IOM and 

the International Catholic Migration Commission) support refugee processing 

activities based in Ecuador, Jordan, Russia, Nepal, and Turkey covering Latin 

America, the Middle East, South and Central Asia, and Europe. The U.S. 

Department of State supports refugee processing in Havana, Cuba.

Cultural Orientation

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

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

experience by providing cultural orientation programs prior to departure for the 

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

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

responsibilities will be.

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

guidebook developed with contributions from refugee resettlement workers, 

resettled refugees, and state government officials. Welcome to the United States is 

produced in 16 languages: Albanian, Amharic, Arabic, Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, 

English, Farsi, French, Karen, Kirundi, Nepali, Russian, Somali, Spanish, Swahili, 

Tigrinya, and Vietnamese. Through this book, refugees have access to accurate 

information about the initial resettlement period before they arrive. The Welcome 
17

to the United States refugee orientation video is available in 13 languages: Arabic, 

English, Farsi, Hmong, Karen, Karenni, Kirundi, Nepali, Russian, Somali, Spanish, 

Swahili, and Tigrinya. In addition, the Department of State funds one- to five-day 

pre-departure orientation classes for eligible refugees at sites throughout the world. 

In an effort to further bridge the information gap, for certain groups, brief video 

presentations featuring the experience of recently resettled refugees of the same 

ethnic group are made available to refugee applicants overseas.
18

Transportation

The Department of State funds the international transportation of refugees 

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

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

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

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

paying at six months.

Reception and Placement

In FY 2012, PRM funded cooperative agreements with nine 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 and food, as well as assistance with access to 

medical, employment, educational, and social services) to arriving refugees. These 

services are provided according to standards of care within a framework of 

outcomes and indicators developed jointly by the NGO community, state refugee 

coordinators, and U.S. government agencies. The nine organizations maintain a 

nationwide network of some 350 affiliated offices to provide services. Two of the 

organizations also maintain a network of 23 affiliated 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 participating agencies provide the 

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

Sponsorship;

Pre-arrival resettlement planning, including placement;

Reception on arrival;

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

for at least 30 days;

Cultural orientation; 

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

services as needed; and

Development and implementation of an initial resettlement plan for each 

refugee for 30-90 days.
19

OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT (ORR) 

During and after the initial resettlement period, ORR provides leadership, 

technical assistance, and funding to states, the District of Columbia, and a network 

of nonprofit organizations to assist refugees to become self sufficient and 

integrated into U.S. society. These ORR-funded programs use formula and 

discretionary grants to provide cash and medical assistance, training programs, 

employment, and other support services to newly-arriving and recently arrived 

refugees. Those refugees determined ineligible for Supplemental Security Income, 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Medicaid can access ORR-funded 

Refugee Cash and Refugee Medical Assistance for up to eight months after arrival. 

ORR-funded Refugee Social Services are available to refugees for up to five years 

after arrival. RSS includes employability services such as English language and 

vocational training to assist refugees to obtain employment and enhance their longterm career opportunities. The ORR Matching Grant Program provides services to 

enable refugees to become economically self-sufficient within 120 to 180 days of 

program eligibility without accessing public cash assistance. Services required 

under this program include case management, employment services, maintenance 

assistance and cash allowance, and administration.

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.
20

REGIONAL PROGRAMS

TABLE II

PROPOSED FY 2013 REGIONAL CEILINGS BY PRIORITY

AFRICA

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 10,750

Priority 2 Groups 750

Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees 500

Total Proposed: 12,000

EAST ASIA

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 1,000

Priority 2 Groups 15,900

Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees 100

Total Proposed: 17,000

EUROPE / CENTRAL ASIA

Priority 1 Individual Referrals

Priority 2 Groups 2,000

Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees

Total Proposed: 2,000

LATIN AMERICA / CARIBBEAN

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 400

Priority 2 Groups 4,550

Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees 50

Total Proposed: 5,000

NEAR EAST / SOUTH ASIA

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 13,500

Priority 2 Groups 17,000

Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees

 500

Total Proposed: 31,000

UNALLOCATED RESERVE 3,000

TOTAL PROPOSED CEILING: 70,000
21

AFRICA

There are currently over 3.3 million refugees across the African continent, 

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

repatriations were still underway in 2012 for refugees able to return to safe areas in 

Burundi, the DRC, and South Sudan. Organized repatriations to Angola, Liberia, 

and Rwanda have largely been completed but residual refugee populations remain. 

UNHCR recommended cessation of prima facie refugee status for refugees from 

Angola and Liberia effective June 30, 2012, and for pre-1998 caseload Rwandan 

refugees effective June 30, 2013. Efforts continue to repatriate those who still 

wish to return and to locally integrate residual populations who wish to remain in 

asylum countries.

While there has been a considerable reduction in the African refugee 

population over the past decade, conflict in the DRC, Mali, Somalia, and Sudan 

and political repression in Eritrea resulted in some 850,000 new refugees in 2011 

and 2012. Sudanese attacks on contested border states starting in June 2011 have

resulted in some 210,000 new Sudanese refugees in South Sudan and Ethiopia. 

Continued fighting in Somalia forced another 400,000 Somalis to flee, bringing 

total Somali refugee numbers to nearly one million. Intensified conflict in eastern 

DRC led an additional 60,000 Congolese to seek asylum in Uganda and Rwanda. 

Fighting erupted in northern Mali in January 2012, so far generating over 290,000

refugees. Finally, Eritreans continue to seek asylum in neighboring countries due 

to political tensions and increasing political repression; over 2,000 per month are 

arriving in Ethiopia and Sudan, many attempting dangerous onward migration to 

Europe and the Middle East in search of refuge in countries with better economic 

opportunities. 

Most African countries honor the principle of first asylum. 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 announced a plan to grant citizenship to Burundi 

refugees who fled their country in 1972. Some 165,000 have been naturalized but 

not all have official documentation of their new citizenship. Lack of international 

support for the installation of the “newly naturalized Tanzanians” in new 

communities could put full implementation in jeopardy.
22

Religious Freedom

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

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

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

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

The government of Eritrea is responsible for severe religious freedom abuses 

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

by harassing, arresting, and detaining members of a reform movement within the 

Eritrean Orthodox Church and of independent evangelical groups, including 

Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witnesses (who lost certain rights of citizenship for not 

participating in the 1993 national referendum). Detainees are held in harsh 

conditions and some have died in custody. The government has also sought 

greater control over the four State-approved religious groups: the Eritrean 

Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelical (Lutheran) Church, 

and the Islamic community. The government reportedly holds individuals who are 

jailed for their religious affiliation at various locations. Often detainees are not 

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

many are ostensibly jailed for evasion of military conscription, significant numbers 

were being held solely for their religious beliefs. As of June 2011, the Jehovah’s 

Witness International Office reported that 51 known Jehovah’s Witnesses were in 

detention without access to legal representation, and many had not been charged 

with a crime. At least three Jehovah’s Witnesses had been detained for 15 years, 

reportedly for evading compulsory military service, a term far beyond the 

maximum legal penalty of two years for refusing to perform national service.

In Sudan, the government continues to place restrictions on Christians. 

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

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

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

strong prejudice against conversion by occasionally subjecting converts to intense 

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

country.

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

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

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

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

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

and Sudan with certain refugee or asylee family members in the United States also 
23

may have access to the USRAP through Priority 3, when it resumes. Certain 

Eritrean refugees in Ethiopia may have access to the USRAP through Priority 2.

In Somalia, the Transitional Federal Charter provides for religious freedom 

although in practice there have been limits on the Transitional Federal 

Government’s capacity to enforce this right and legal protections. Respect for 

religious freedom has continued to decline, primarily due to extremist militias and 

their control over significant territory in the country. Militia groups, particularly 

those associated with the U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization alShabaab, have often violently imposed a strict interpretation of Islam on 

communities under their control. There have also been reports that non-Muslim 

individuals experience discrimination, violence, and detention because of their 

religious beliefs. Refugees from Somalia and with certain refugee or asylee family 

members in the United States will also have access to the USRAP through Priority 

3 when it resumes.

Voluntary Repatriation

Despite the continued existence of protracted refugee situations, voluntary 

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

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

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

progress in promoting and supporting refugee repatriation and reintegration in 

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

half (from six million at their height in the 1990s to 3.3 million today) even in the 

face of new outflows.

In West Africa, UNHCR launched its official repatriation program in 

February 2012 for some 67,000 remaining refugees from Cote d’Ivoire who had 

fled to Liberia in 2010 and 2011, returning 5,000 to date. Another 150,000 

Ivoirian refugees spontaneously returned home starting in late 2011 following the 

cessation of post-election hostilities in Cote d’Ivoire. UNHCR’s Liberian 

repatriation program officially ended in June 2007, with some 650,000 Liberians 

having returned home either spontaneously or with UNHCR assistance. UNHCR 

continues to focus on both repatriation and local integration as durable solutions

for some 60,000 Liberians who remain outside their country in various West 

African countries. 

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

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

percent of the original refugee population. However, due to instability in South 

Sudan, the pace of returns slowed considerably in 2012. Approximately 80,000 
24

South Sudanese refugees are currently in neighboring countries, including 70,000 

who fled the earlier civil war and 12,000 who fled recent fighting in 2012. 

No repatriation initiatives are currently anticipated for the Darfur region of Sudan 

or Somalia, where conflict continues to prevent safe return. Some 1,000,000 

Somalis have sought asylum in neighboring countries, most without any near-term

prospect of return to war-torn Somalia. Despite the efforts of some asylum 

countries to repatriate Eritrean refugees, UNHCR has strongly discouraged returns 

to Eritrea given ongoing political repression and harsh treatment of returnees.

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

with over 500,000 returns since 2002, including over 53,000 of the old-caseload 

refugees who chose not to accept the government of Tanzania’s offer of 

naturalization. Repatriation of the last of the 1993-era Burundi refugees has recommenced. Although the majority of Rwandan refugees returned home in the 

late 1990s, some 50,000 remain in exile. With the invocation of the cessation 

clause for pre-1998 Rwandan refugees on June 30, 2013, remaining Rwandans will 

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

countries. Repatriation to relatively stable areas of the DRC wound down in 2011

with the conclusion of returns from Zambia and Tanzania to the Katanga Province. 

North and South Kivu Provinces remain mostly too insecure for large-scale refugee 

return, with internal displacement and new refugee flows in 2012. Ethnic violence 

that erupted in late 2009 in Equateur Province forced some 200,000 Congolese to 

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

facilitated repatriation began in May, and UNHCR hopes to repatriate as many as 

25,000 refugees by the end of 2012. Additionally, the persistent threat of attack 

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

CAR, and South Sudan has contributed to instability in the region, preventing the 

return of some 40,000 refugees displaced by the LRA in 2011.

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 residents. As a result, local integration was often 

an interim, rather than a durable, solution for many African refugees.
25

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

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

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

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

West African States.

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 over 200,000 1972-era Burundi 

refugees who desire it; some 165,000 accepted the offer and were collectively 

naturalized, although not all have received documentation and the modalities of the 

integration process are still being negotiated. While not a formal integration 

program, Ethiopia introduced an out-of-camp policy for Eritrean refugees in 

August 2010. This policy allows Eritreans to live outside camps if they are able to 

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

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

educational opportunities, including tertiary education, and can be seen as a 

positive step towards a local integration policy. 

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.
26

FY 2012 U.S. Admissions

We project some 9,500 African refugee arrivals in FY 2012 –lower than the 

11,000 anticipated at the beginning of the year – due to a number of factors. These 

include challenges related to finalizing individual security clearances; a decrease in 

UNHCR referrals; our inability to process in Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya; and 

delayed or canceled circuit rides in Chad and other locations in Kenya due to 

security concerns. In addition, applicants at various stages of the pipeline continue 

to be withdrawn by UNHCR from the U.S. program due to their possession of 

Kenyan identity cards. 

Three countries of origin (Somalia, Eritrea, and the DRC) currently account 

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

continue to process P-1 Somalis in Kakuma refugee camp, however, processing in 

Dadaab has been suspended since December 2011 due to the worsening security 

situation. We are coming closer to completing P-2 processing of Eritreans in 

Shimelba camp in Ethiopia, but will continue to process P-1 UNHCR referrals 

after the P-2 group is completed. We were able to conduct two small circuit rides

to Sudan to process the first referrals of a protracted caseload of Eritrean refugees 

there. Processing of CAR refugees in Chad has proceeded but DHS interviews 

were cancelled for security reasons in February 2012 and will continue in the next 

fiscal year. We saw an increase in processing of DRC refugees in Rwanda, and 

anticipate an increasing number of referrals of DRC refugees from Uganda, 

Rwanda, Tanzania, and Burundi over the next four to five years as part of a 

regional UNHCR approach to resettle as many as 50,000 DRC refugees. 

We have largely completed the processing of the residual P-3 Liberian and 

Sierra Leonean caseloads in West Africa and will not take any new applications. 

Moreover, with the civil wars having ended nearly ten years ago, we no longer 

receive many resettlement referrals for these populations. Close to 500 refugee 

admissions from Central Africa, mostly processed in Chad, are expected this year. 

In all, we expect to admit refugees of more than 20 African nationalities, processed 

in nearly thirty countries during FY 2012.

FY 2013 U.S. Resettlement Program

We propose up to 12,000 resettlement numbers for African refugees in FY 

2013. PRM has actively engaged relevant offices within the Department of State, 

UNHCR, the NGO 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 2013.
27

From East and Southern Africa, we expect 9,000 admissions, primarily 

Somalis in Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and South Africa; Eritreans in Ethiopia and 

in Sudan; and additional small numbers of P-1 referrals of various nationalities in 

the countries above, as well as in Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe Consultations 

that PRM has had with UNHCR and host countries over the past several years have

resulted in a regional plan to refer large numbers of Congolese refugees in Uganda, 

Rwanda, Tanzania and Burundi to the USRAP over the next four to five years. 

From West and Central Africa, we expect fewer than 500 admissions. We

anticipate a steady stream of referrals of Central African Republic refugees in 

Southern Chad, which would constitute the bulk of arrivals from this area. 

Outside of sub-Saharan Africa, we anticipate up to 1,500 Sudanese, Somali, 

Ethiopian, Eritrean, and other sub-Saharan African refugees to be processed in 

Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, and Russia. Although African refugees 

have been referred for U.S. consideration in Syria and Yemen, the security 

situation in these countries has not permitted us to process the referrals throughout 

FY 2012, with the exception of relatively small numbers transferred to one of 

UNHCR’s Emergency Transit Centers in Europe. If the security situation 

improves in FY 2013, we will restart processing in these locations. 

Proposed FY 2013 Africa program to include arrivals from the following 

categories: 

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 10,750

Priority 2 Groups 750

Priority 3 Family Reunification 500

Total Proposed Ceiling 12,000

EAST ASIA 

Several East Asian countries host large and diverse refugee populations. 

Recent years have seen important developments for these groups, particularly 

involving the strategic use of resettlement as a durable solution. Thailand, 

Malaysia, Bangladesh, and India continue to host large numbers of Burmese 

refugees and asylum-seekers. The U.S. government continues to press for 

meaningful political and democratic reform and national reconciliation with ethnic 

minority groups in Burma, while recognizing reforms made over the past year by 

easing financial and investment sanctions and naming the first U.S. ambassador to 

Burma in 22 years. The international community has also initiated discussions 

regarding the voluntary return of Burmese refugees, but acknowledges that 
28

ongoing conflict and the long road towards peace, national reconciliation, and 

development make large scale return of refugees in safety and with dignity a 

longer-term goal.

As of mid-2012, more than 86, 000 registered refugees from Burma were 

recognized by UNHCR and the Thai Ministry of the Interior and were living in 

nine Royal Thai government-administered 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, the combination of long-staying Burmese in Thailand moving into the 

camps when space becomes available and newly arrived Burmese refugees fleeing 

continued conflict in Burma and seeking essential services such as health and 

education in Thailand have precluded a meaningful reduction of the camps’ total 

population.

Since 2006, UNHCR Malaysia has operated the second largest refugee status 

determination program in the world. As of April 2012, there were 98,100 persons 

of concern registered with UNHCR in Malaysia of which 89,900, or 91 percent, 

are from Burma (34,340 Chin, 22,840 stateless Rohingya from Burma’s Northern 

Rakhine State, 10,510 Rakhines, 10,480 Myanmar Muslims, 3,780 Mon, 3,250

Kachins and other ethnic minorities). In addition, some 8,200 asylum-seekers and 

refugees from various countries – primarily Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Sri 

Lanka – are registered with UNHCR in Malaysia. Malaysia is not a party to the 

1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol. We 

support UNHCR’s efforts to use resettlement as a strategic tool to assist refugees in 

Malaysia.

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

statelessness and oppression due to their Muslim faith and ethnicity migrated from 

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

refugees were voluntarily repatriated from Bangladesh, leaving behind over 29,000

refugees, who remain in two official refugee camps in southeastern Bangladesh. 

An additional 9,000 unregistered Rohingya reside in an unofficial settlement in 

Leda and approximately 20,000 unregistered Rohingya reside in the makeshift 

Kutupalong camp. In addition, an unknown number who had previously 

repatriated, have again returned to Bangladesh and are now living without UNHCR 

protection. In all, there are approximately 200,000-500,000 unregistered Rohingya 

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

district. UNHCR continues to work to enhance protection and address security 

concerns caused by growing tensions between both registered refugees and 

unregistered Rohingya and local Bangladeshis living outside of the camps. 
29

The cases of more than 500 individual Rohingyas, including 281 individuals 

approved for resettlement to several countries, have been on hold since October 

2010 when the government of Bangladesh halted resettlement activities pending a 

review of their refugee policy; Bangladesh has yet to issue a formal decision on a 

national refugee policy. We are prepared to resume resettlement activity 

immediately following a decision. In addition, we expect ongoing UNHCR 

referrals of urban Burmese in India.

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

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

inside the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and in various countries in the 

region. The United States began resettling interested, eligible North Korean 

refugees in 2006 and remains committed to continuing this program.

Religious Freedom

Although many governments in East Asia do not restrict religious freedom, 

religious believers face serious persecution in several countries. The DPRK, 

China, and Burma are designated by the Department of State as CPCs under the 

International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for systematic, ongoing, and 

egregious violations of religious freedom. 

The DPRK severely restricts religious freedom, including organized 

religious activity, except that which is supervised tightly by officially recognized 

groups linked to the government. Although the DPRK constitution provides for 

“freedom of religious belief,” genuine religious freedom does not exist. Little is 

known about the day-to-day life of religious persons in the country. Religious and 

human rights groups outside of the country have provided numerous reports that 

members of underground churches have been beaten, arrested, tortured, or killed 

because of their religious beliefs.

While the constitutions of China, Burma, and Vietnam provide for freedom 

of religion, in practice these governments restrict or repress activities of some 

religious communities. 

The Chinese government continues to harass and interfere with unregistered 

religious groups, most notably the unofficial Catholic churches loyal to the Holy 

See, Protestant “house churches,” some Muslim groups (especially Uighur 

Muslims in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region), members of the Falun Gong, 

and Buddhists loyal to the Dalai Lama. Religious believers are sometimes 

arrested, imprisoned, and there have been allegations of torture.
30

In Burma, the government actively promotes Buddhism over other religions 

and continues to discriminate against religious minorities, in particular stateless 

Rohingya Muslims. Coerced conversions continue to be of primary concern to 

Christian groups in Burma. 

Vietnam and the United States signed an agreement on religious freedom in 

May 2005, under which Vietnam committed to improving the status of religious 

freedom in Vietnam. As a result of the progress Vietnam made after signing the 

agreement, the U.S. government removed Vietnam from the CPC list in November 

2006. Over the past three years, Vietnam’s religious freedom record has been 

mixed. Progress has been made with regard to the registration/recognition of 

religious groups and congregations. In addition, religious groups have experienced 

expanded freedom of assembly. However, there are also reports of harassment at 

the local level, including through the use of land laws. Moreover, the government 

has not made progress on its commitment to translate the Bible into modern 

H’mong and several Protestant congregations in rural areas continue to report 

harassment, including beatings and forced renunciations. 

Nationals of the North Korea, Vietnam, China, Laos, and Burma have access 

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

Burmese will be processed in large numbers in FY 2012 under Priority 2. North 

Korean and Burmese refugees will also have access to family reunification 

processing through Priority 3, when it resumes.

Voluntary Repatriation

Although the Burmese government has taken steps to implement some 

democratic and political reforms, ongoing fighting continues between the Burma 

Army and ethnic minority groups and national peace and reconciliation efforts will 

take time; thus, the repatriation of most Burmese refugees in Thailand, 

Bangladesh, Malaysia, India, and elsewhere is not currently a viable solution. 

Local Integration

Due to fears of a “pull factor,” countries in the region have traditionally been 

reluctant to integrate refugees or to grant asylum. We hope that U.S. efforts to 

resettle large numbers of refugees from the camps along the Thai-Burma border 

will encourage the Thai government to improve livelihood opportunities for those 

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

governments continue to engage in a strategic dialogue with the Royal Thai 

government concerning the future of the nine camps on the Thai-Burma border. 

We recognize that the Thai government remains concerned that resettlement has 
31

not dramatically reduced the camp population as a mixture of new arrivals and 

Burmese who were living just outside of the camps are taking the place of those 

who are departing for third countries. Local integration remains a difficult option, 

due to opposition from host countries, such as Thailand, Bangladesh, Malaysia, 

and India. UNHCR and the international community continue to advocate for 

these governments to make policy changes relating to refugees, and to expand 

humanitarian protection and assistance space for refugees and other persons of 

concern.

Third-Country Resettlement

The United States continues to lead third country resettlement efforts in the 

region. Other resettlement countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, 

and the Nordic countries, resettle refugees referred by UNHCR. In FY 2012, the 

United States processed UNHCR-referred refugee cases in, China, Hong Kong, 

Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. 

FY 2012 U.S. Admissions

We expect to admit up to 15,000 refugees from East Asia in FY 2012. This 

will include some 7,000 Burmese ethnic minorities (mostly Karen, Karenni, and 

Kachin) living in camps along the Thai-Burma border, some 8,000 Burmese (of 

various ethnic minorities) in Malaysia, and a small number of urban refugees of 

various nationalities in the region. 

FY 2013 U.S. Resettlement Program

We propose the admission of 17,000 refugees from East Asia in FY 2013. 

We will interview Burmese refugees living in all nine camps located in three 

provinces in Thailand and will continue processing in Malaysia, with Burmese 

composing the vast majority of the proposed 17,000 refugee admissions from East 

Asia in FY 2013.
32

Proposed FY 2013 East Asia program to include arrivals from the following 

categories: 

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 1,000

Priority 2 Groups 15,900 

Priority 3 Family Reunification 100 

Total Proposed Ceiling 17,000

EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

Europe continues to host large refugee populations, as well as other persons 

affected by conflict, who, over the last two decades, have been left in situations of 

protracted displacement – often in dire conditions. In its 2011-2012 Global 

Appeal, UNHCR reported that there were nearly 4.4 million asylum seekers, 

refugees, internally displaced persons, stateless individuals, or other persons “of 

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

region, such as in Afghanistan, but the estimates also include persons claiming 

persecution within Eurasia.

All countries of the South Caucasus, the Russian Federation, and Central 

Asia except Uzbekistan have acceded to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status 

of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. However, compliance with these instruments 

remains problematic. Despite sustained efforts by UNHCR and other stakeholders 

to build protection capacity and help strengthen asylum systems and protection 

laws in the region, results have so far been modest. Many of these countries have 

been slow or reluctant to recognize and integrate refugees and other at-risk 

individuals. The protection provided by some regional governments to refugees, 

asylum seekers, and other migrants is limited, and public intolerance, including 

attacks against non-Slavic foreigners, is common. There are documented cases of 

refoulement. UNHCR has been working with many of these governments to 

establish and reform asylum procedures and refugee protection laws. Modest 

progress has been made.

The 1990’s break-up of the Soviet Union also created newly independent states 

with sizeable populations of stateless individuals due to gaps in nationality laws 

and inconsistent implementation of those laws. Difficulty in establishing 

citizenship at the time of succession has also created later problems for children

born to an undocumented parent. The problem of statelessness remains in the 

region although some states, such as Turkmenistan, have taken steps to register 

stateless individuals and facilitate their acquisition of nationality. 
33

According to UNHCR, at the end of 2011 there were approximately 440,000 

refugees and IDPs in the Balkans, almost all of whom have been displaced for a 

decade or longer. An estimated 210,000 persons of this population are displaced 

from Kosovo, most in Serbia. Since 2000, the overall level of return to Kosovo 

from Serbia has been low. There have been over 23,000 voluntary returns of 

minorities to Kosovo since the conflict, of which 42 percent were ethnic Serbs. 

From 2010 to 2012, the countries of the region, with the assistance of the 

international community, made significant progress toward resolving the refugee 

situation stemming from the breakup of Yugoslavia from 1991-1995. A November 

2011 ministerial meeting in Belgrade brought together ministers of foreign affairs 

from Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro to sign a Joint 

Declaration expressing their collective will to resolve the protracted refugee 

situation, and they committed their countries to a Regional Housing Program 

(RHP) for refugees and IDPs supported by international donors. A donors’

conference in April 2012 succeed in raising over $340 million (€260 million) in 

international funds to support the RHP over five years. 

Religious Freedom

The status of religious freedom varies widely across Europe and Central 

Asia. Among the various states in this region, some mandate the registration of 

religious groups. Nontraditional religious groups are sometimes labeled as “sects” 

or “cults” by their home governments and may be subject to special scrutiny and 

limited privileges. Registration typically carries the right to rent or own property, 

hold religious services, appoint military and prison chaplains, and receive state 

subsidies. Restitution of religious properties is an issue yet to be fully resolved. 

Uzbekistan is designated by the Department of State as a CPC under the 

International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for systematic, ongoing, and 

egregious violations of religious freedom. 

Manifestations of anti-Semitism continue throughout the region, including 

demonstrations by extremist groups, physical assaults, and vandalism of 

cemeteries, synagogues, and monuments. While most incidents have taken place

in former communist bloc countries, a number of western European countries have 

faced a disturbing increase in anti-Semitism, in addition to anti-Muslim sentiment 

and Islamophobia.

The Russian government asserts control over “non-traditional” minority 

religious groups by using extremism laws to justify raids, arrests and bans on 

religious literature. Readers of Muslim theologian Said Nursi, Jehovah’s 

Witnesses, Scientologists, Falun Gong followers, and some Protestant groups have 
34

been particularly targeted. 

Conscientious objectors on the basis of their faith are sometimes arrested 

and prosecuted for failing to comply with laws mandating military service, as has 

happened in Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Turkmenistan. 

Muslims across Europe and Central Asia have sometimes been viewed as

potential threats and accused of membership in internationally banned groups. In 

some countries, there are legal prohibitions against wearing the veil and other 

religious garb in public. There are also a growing number of western European 

countries trying to outlaw ritual slaughter of animals.

Restrictions on religious freedom in Central Asia are often justified in the 

name of maintaining stability and combating terrorism. Some governments believe

that religious freedom will result in competing centers of power and influence or 

open the door to violent extremism, although research shows that government 

suppression often results in increased violence and loss of regime legitimacy. 

Non-violent, non-extremist religious minorities such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses 

and Nur, are often targets, as well as majorities from dominant religions that may 

include new streams of belief. 

Since 1989, the USRAP has offered resettlement consideration to 

individuals from certain religious minorities in the nations that made up the former 

Soviet Union who also have close family ties to the United States. Under the 

Lautenberg Amendment, Jews, Evangelical Christians, and certain members of the 

Ukrainian Catholic or Ukrainian Orthodox Churches are considered under a 

reduced evidentiary standard when being considered for refugee status. In recent 

years, fewer new applications and low approval rates have resulted in fewer 

departures to the United States. Individuals of all nationalities throughout the 

region may be referred for Priority 1 processing.

Voluntary Repatriation

The international community continues to support efforts to create favorable 

conditions for the return of ethnic minorities to their homes in the Balkans. In June 

2006, Serbian, Kosovar, and UN authorities signed the Protocol on Voluntary and 

Sustainable Return to Kosovo, which sought to improve the conditions for return 

by focusing on three elements: ensuring the safety of returnees, returning property 

to the displaced and rebuilding their houses, and creating an overall environment 

that sustains returns. International funding continues to facilitate and sustain the 

return and reintegration of displaced minorities from Kosovo. In 2011, Serbia, 

Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia agreed to work together to fund 
35

and implement an internationally supported program to provide durable housing 

solutions to the neediest remaining refugees and IDPs from the Balkans war of the 

early 1990s. The program will encourage voluntary repatriation but also support 

local integration as a durable solution. 

Local Integration

UNHCR has led efforts to create viable asylum systems and effective legal 

protections for refugees in the Balkans, the Russian Federation, the South 

Caucasus and Central Asia. However, ineffective implementation of these laws, 

combined with the history of national animosities and xenophobia throughout the 

region, often makes effective local integration difficult for ethnic minority 

refugees. In Russia, difficulties in acquiring citizenship remain for some former 

Soviet citizens who resided in Russia before 1992 and are, under Russian law, 

entitled to Russian citizenship. Groups such as the Meskhetian Turks have been 

unable to obtain Russian citizenship and thus remain de facto stateless. In 

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

from Kosovo. 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 at-risk 

individuals fleeing various forms of persecution within the region. Jewish 

immigration to Israel continues, with 6,108 individuals from states of the former 

Soviet Union availing themselves of this opportunity in 2011 under the United 

Israel Appeal Program.

FY 2012 U.S. Admissions

In FY 2012 we estimate 1,000 admissions from Europe and Central Asia. 

Religious minorities processed under the Lautenberg Amendment from countries 

of the former Soviet Union constitute nearly the entire the caseload. During FY 

2012, applicants were processed in Almaty, Baku, Bishkek, Chisinau, Kyiv, 

Valletta, Moscow, Timisoara, and Tashkent.

FY 2013 U.S. Resettlement Program

The proposed FY 2013 ceiling for refugees from Europe and Central Asia is 

2,000. Priority 2 includes individuals who will be processed under Lautenberg 
36

guidelines in the states of the former Soviet Union. Low approval rates for this 

Priority 2 program and a reduced rate of new applications serve to limit the number 

of admissions.

Proposed FY 2013 Europe and Central Asia program to include arrivals from 

the following categories: 

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 0

Priority 2 Groups 2,000 

Priority 3 Family Reunification 0

Total Proposed Ceiling 2,000

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

In 2011, the number of refugees, asylum seekers, IDPs, and other people of 

concern in Latin America and the Caribbean totaled over 4 million. The ongoing 

conflict in Colombia generated the largest numbers of refugees and IDPs in the 

region. Estimates of the number of IDPs in Colombia vary between 3.6 million 

(government figure) and 5.2 million (NGO figure). Expanded state presence and 

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

internal displacement in 2009 and 2010. However, displacement increased in 2011 

as a result of confrontations between the government of Colombia and illegal 

armed groups, including the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), 

the National Liberation Army (ELN), paramilitaries, and criminal narco-trafficking 

networks. Colombia registered 143,116 IDPs in 2011 and with each year, the

cumulative total of IDPs continues to grow. In surrounding countries, including 

Ecuador, Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Panama, there are over 400,000 Colombian 

asylum seekers, refugees, and persons in refugee-like situations.

The number of Colombian asylum seekers, refugees, and persons of concern 

in neighboring countries continues to rise. Ecuador has the highest number of 

recognized Colombian refugees and asylum seekers in Latin America. The 

government of Ecuador has recognized 56,190 refugees, and there are currently 

16,000 asylum claims pending. The asylum process in Ecuador is slow and 

difficult to access, and the refugee approval rate is around 30 percent. In 2011, the 

government of Ecuador added a pre-admissibility step to the refugee status 

determination (RSD) process, which has created additional delays. Asylum 

seekers pending RSD can wait up to a year for a decision and have no legal right to 

work in the interim. UNHCR participates in the asylum process but has 

highlighted a deteriorating protection environment in Ecuador for refugees, citing 
37

labor exploitation, a more active presence of illegal armed groups and criminal 

gangs, forced recruitment of minors, and increasing xenophobia and 

discrimination. Other countries in the region, such as Costa Rica, Venezuela, the 

Dominican Republic, and Panama, also have established asylum procedures, but 

the registration and determination procedures are often implemented ineffectively.

UNHCR is working with these countries, including Ecuador, to improve their 

asylum processes. In Panama, there are approximately 1,400 recognized refugees 

(mainly Colombians). In 2011, the government of Panama passed Law 356 

granting over 900 Colombian refugees living in the Darien Province with 

Temporary Humanitarian Protection status the ability to apply for permanent 

residency and work permits. In Costa Rica, there are approximately 13,000 

recognized refugees. Under a new migration law, Costa Rica re-established its 

Refugee Department in March 2010. There are approximately 3,000 recognized 

refugees in Venezuela, and UNHCR estimates there are another 200,000 persons 

living in a refugee-like situation in the country. In Brazil, there are over 4,000 

recognized refugees from 75 different countries; the largest numbers are from 

Angola and Colombia.

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

vulnerable Colombian refugees located in Ecuador and Costa Rica. Most 

Colombian refugees have fled the roughly 50-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 

provided “material support” under duress to the FARC, ELN, and the United SelfDefense Forces of Colombia have been resolved with the issuance of exemptions 

in 2007.

The United States continues to support UNHCR’s efforts to help 

governments in the Caribbean address the needs of Haitian refugees and asylum 

seekers.

Religious Freedom

In Latin America, religious freedom is widely recognized and enjoyed; however, 

significant restrictions remain in place in Cuba. Although the Cuban constitution 

recognizes the right of citizens to profess and practice any religious belief within 

the framework of respect for the law, the government continued to engage in active 

surveillance of religious institutions. Through an in-country program, the U.S. 

Refugee Admissions Program offers the opportunity for legal migration to the 

United States for Cubans who have been persecuted on a number of grounds, 

including because of their religious beliefs.
38

Manifestations of anti-Semitism occur throughout Latin America –

particularly in South America. In Venezuela, anti-Semitism is governmentsponsored, widespread, and increasing. Manifestations of anti-Semitism in 

Venezuela include incitement by government media and government leaders 

including Hugo Chavez, an inability to import religiously required food items, and 

verbal and physical harassments. The Jewish community in Venezuela is a vestige 

of its former self with members fleeing Venezuela out of fear that the situation will 

worsen after the October elections.

Voluntary Repatriation

Given the threats and violence in Colombia from illegal armed groups (nonstate actors) and the lack of state presence to provide full protection in some areas, 

UNHCR does not actively promote repatriation of Colombian refugees.

Local Integration 

The governments of Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Venezuela have 

maintained policies that theoretically allow Colombians in need of protection to 

obtain asylum and integrate locally, although the processes involved are usually 

slow and cumbersome. The governments’ capacity to review applications and 

confer refugee status remains limited. Even registered refugees with the right to 

work in these countries struggle to find stable employment or income 

opportunities, competing with the large number of poor in host communities. 

Colombians seeking international protection face rising levels of discrimination 

and xenophobia, and the ability to locally integrate in some areas is becoming 

more difficult. Furthermore, refugees do not live in camps, but rather the large 

majority live in urban areas. 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 showed some improvement in recent years, but delays in recognition 

and documentation still exist. For asylum seekers in Panama, the situation is 

complicated, as the government continues to be reluctant to receive Colombian 

refugees or confer even minimal protection. Security remains a major concern for 

the government of Panama, and Panamanians often equate refugees with drug 

trafficking and crime. 

The Department of State is currently supporting UNHCR’s efforts to assist 

the Dominican Republic and other Caribbean countries in developing systems for 

conducting refugee status determinations for asylum seekers, including Haitians.

The opening of a UNHCR office in the Dominican Republic in 2010 and the 

agency’s continued presence in Haiti have contributed greatly to its ability to 

address the protection needs of refugees, asylum-seekers, and displaced and 
39

stateless persons in mixed migration flows throughout the region. In FY2012, 

UNHCR undertook a refugee mapping initiative through which the organization 

identified 200 households with 860 asylum seekers and 49 refugee households in 

need of assistance in the Dominican Republic.

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 principally in 

Ecuador and Costa Rica, with occasional cases in Panama and other countries 

throughout the region. Under the “Solidarity Resettlement Program,” a component 

of the Mexico Plan of Action which sought regional solutions to the Colombian 

refugee issue, countries in the region including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and 

Uruguay are working with UNHCR to resettle limited numbers of Colombian 

refugees. As noted earlier, the Department of State is providing technical support 

to bolster Uruguay’s resettlement program.

The United States also facilitates the resettlement to third countries of 

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

Station directly and who are found by DHS/USCIS to have a well-founded fear of 

persecution or to be more likely than not to face torture if repatriated to their 

country of origin. From 1996 to 2012, 358 such protected persons have been 

resettled to 20 countries worldwide. Twenty-seven have been resettled in FY2012 

(as of May 31). 

The U.S. government continues to operate an in-country refugee 

resettlement program in Cuba. We have taken steps to ensure all Cubans eligible 

for consideration have access to the program and that approved refugees travel as 

soon as possible. The number of persons seeking refugee resettlement remains 

high and there is a substantial backlog of cases pending review, an unknown 

number of which are likely ineligible for the program. Additional resources are 

being applied to address the backlogged cases, and we expect the backlog will

continue to decrease by the end of FY 2013. Recent upgrades to the refugee annex 

have been completed, thus allowing the mission to expand the Cultural Orientation 

program for approved applicants. Unfortunately, the Cuban government interferes 

with USRAP’s communications with some individuals, causing delays, 

misunderstandings, or misinformation. Some approved refugees do not have 

sufficient funds to pay for the medical exams, passports, and exit permits needed to 

depart Cuba. Others are refused exit permission by the Cuban government.
40

Cubans currently eligible to apply for admission to the United States through 

the in-country program include the following:

1. Former political prisoners;

2. Members of persecuted religious minorities;

3. Human rights activists;

4. Forced labor conscripts (1965-68); 

5. Persons deprived of their professional credentials or subjected to other 

disproportionately harsh or discriminatory treatment resulting from their 

perceived or actual political or religious beliefs; and

6. Persons who have experienced or fear harm because of their relationship 

– family or social – to someone who falls under one of the preceding 

categories.

FY 2012 U.S. Admissions

We anticipate admitting close to 2,500 refugees from Latin America and the 

Caribbean during FY 2012. Cubans comprise the overwhelming majority of 

refugees resettled from the region. Historically, most Cuban admissions were 

former political prisoners and forced labor conscripts. The program was expanded 

in 1991 to include human rights activists, displaced professionals, and others with 

claims of persecution, which currently comprise the majority of admissions. We 

expect roughly 100 Colombian refugees to be admitted to the United States during 

FY 2012.

FY 2013 U.S. Resettlement Program

The proposed 5,000 ceiling for Latin America and the Caribbean for 

FY 2013 comprises Cuban refugees eligible for the in-country Priority 2 program; 

a small number of UNHCR-referred Priority 1 Colombians; as well as a small 

number of Priority 3 family reunification cases.
41

Proposed FY 2013 Latin America program to include arrivals from the following 

categories: 

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 400

Priority 2 (In-Country Cubans) 4,550

Priority 3 Family Reunification 50

Total Proposed Ceiling 5,000

NEAR EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

The Near East/South Asia region remains host to millions of refugees, 

primarily Iraqis, Palestinians, Afghans, Iranians, Tibetans, Sri Lankans, Bhutanese, 

and now Syrians. Few countries in the region are party to the 1951 Convention 

relating to the Status of Refugees and/or its 1967 Protocol. Nonetheless, many 

host governments tolerate the presence of refugees within their borders.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International 

Committee of the Red Cross, the International Organization for Migration, the 

World Food Program, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine 

Refugees in the Near East, and other humanitarian organizations work with 

refugees in the region. Some countries have provided long-term protection and/or 

asylum, mainly to Tibetans, Bhutanese, Sri Lankans, Palestinians, Afghans, 

Somalis, and a handful of other nationalities. Refugees identified by UNHCR for 

third-country resettlement include Iraqis in Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, 

Yemen, and the Gulf States; Bhutanese in Nepal; Afghans in Pakistan, Iran, 

Turkey, Syria, and India; and Iranians in Turkey.

As of May 31, 2012, 150,766 Iraqi refugees were registered with UNHCR. 

There is no internationally agreed-upon definitive number of Iraqi refugees and 

internally displaced persons due to the fact that not all are registered with UNHCR 

and they are dispersed throughout the region. UNHCR reports that approximately 

1.3 million Iraqis displaced by sectarian violence following the Samarra Mosque 

bombing of February 2006 remain internally displaced. Approximately 35,300 

refugees (including Palestinians and Iranian Kurds) and 4,300 asylum seekers 

remain in Iraq, as well as an additional 13,587 displaced Syrians and Syrian Kurds.

The situation in Syria remains fluid. As of August 9, 2012, there were 

approximately 140,000 displaced to Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq. The 

continued violence in Syria is causing continued displacement, both internally as 

well as to neighboring countries. The United States government is providing 
42

assistance to displaced Syrians throughout the region through support to 

international organizations, such as UNHCR, the International Committee for the 

Red Cross, and the World Food Program, as well as through non-governmental 

organizations, which are providing critical assistance such as food, water shelter, 

and medical care. As of August 9, the United States government had provided 

over $76 million in critical humanitarian assistance.

Despite the voluntary repatriation of over 5.7 million Afghan refugees since 

2002, Pakistan and Iran continue to host, respectively, approximately 1.7 million 

and one million registered Afghans, many of whom have resided in these countries 

for decades. The maintenance of asylum and protection space for those refugees 

who cannot yet return to Afghanistan, while continuing to support voluntary 

repatriation is a top priority for the U.S. government and for UNHCR. In addition 

to Afghan refugees, some 2-3 million Afghans are believed to live and work in 

Pakistan and Iran as economic migrants without documentation. Over 10,000 

Afghan refugees and asylum seekers are also registered with UNHCR in India. 

Identifying durable solutions remains an important component of UNHCR’s

strategy in India. Local integration remains a difficult option due to opposition 

from host countries such as Bangladesh, Malaysia, and India.

Thousands of ethnic Nepalis in Bhutan were forced out of Bhutan in the 

early 1990s as a result of the Bhutanese government’s policy of “one nation and 

one people” (also referred to as “Bhutanization”). Despite 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 genuine 

Bhutanese nationals, to date none have been permitted to return. Due to concerted 

resettlement efforts commenced in 2008 by the United States and other 

resettlement countries, more than 65,000 of the original population of 108,000 

Bhutanese refugees in Nepal have departed after spending two decades in camps in 

eastern Nepal.

Religious Freedom 

Persecution of religious groups 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 groups, particularly Muslims and Christians, are often inadequate.

In Afghanistan, religious freedom is limited due to constitutional 

contradictions, legislative ambiguity, and interpretations of Islamic law that punish 

apostasy and blasphemy.
43

In India, five of the 28 state governments have anti-conversion laws that 

negatively affect religious minorities. Additionally, there have been instances 

where local police and enforcement agencies have not been swift to counter 

communal attacks against religious minorities.

In Pakistan, the penal code includes blasphemy laws that carry punishments 

ranging from imprisonment to the death penalty. Frequent abuses of these laws 

negatively affect religious minorities, both Muslims and non-Muslims. In early 

2011, two senior government officials were killed after speaking out against the 

abuse of the blasphemy laws against minorities and others remain under threat 

from violent extremists.

In Maldives, religious freedom is severely restricted by the government. 

Citizens are prohibited from practicing any religion other than Islam. There has 

been an increase in the use of political rhetoric, including anti-Semitic statements 

by some political leaders, and there is concern over increasing religious extremism.

In Sri Lanka, religious tensions continue to be a problem, and Muslim, 

Hindu, and Buddhist communities often distrust one another. Incidents such as 

sporadic attacks against the Christian community, and the destruction of a Muslim 

shrine by Buddhist monks in late 2011 exacerbate such tensions. 

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

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

harassment, and arrest. Members of the Shia community who express religious 

views different from those of the government are also subject to harassment and 

intimidation.

In some countries in the region, most notably Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi 

Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt, blasphemy, apostasy, and defamation of religion laws 

have been used to restrict religious liberty, constrain the rights of religious 

minorities, and limit freedom of expression and those accused face threats of

societal violence. Under these governments’ interpretations of Islamic law, 

perpetrators may be denied their civil rights if any member of society files a 

complaint against them. Sharia courts decide personal status cases in most 

countries in the region. In Iran, judges in these courts often rule against converts 

and members of minority religious groups by annulling marriages, transferring

child custody, conveying property rights to Muslim family members, depriving

individuals of their civil rights, and declaring them wards of the state without any 

religious identity. Iran and Saudi Arabia are designated by the Department of State 

as CPCs under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for systematic, 

ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom. 
44

One of the greatest impacts of violence in Iraq has been on Iraq’s small 

religious minority communities. These minorities, including Christians, Yezidis, 

Sabean-Mandaeans, and others, have experienced wide-scale displacement – in 

some cases affecting as much as 90 percent of their population over the past eight 

years. Some 20 percent of registered Iraqi refugees are members of religious 

minorities, a figure appreciably larger than their percentage of the overall Iraqi 

population. As a result, some of these religious communities, along with their 

ancient languages and customs, are on the verge of disappearing.

In 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. Under the Specter Amendment, Iranian religious 

minorities designated as Priority 2 category members are considered under a 

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

Iranian refugees have also gained access to the program through Priority 3. In 

addition, the USRAP accepts UNHCR and embassy referrals of religious 

minorities of various nationalities in the region. Nationals of any country, 

including CPCs, may be referred to the U.S. program by UNHCR or a U.S. 

embassy for reasons of religious persecution.

Voluntary Repatriation

After the fall of the Taliban, voluntary repatriation to Afghanistan proceeded 

on a massive scale for several years, both with and without UNHCR assistance. 

Since 2002, over 5.7 million Afghan refugees have returned, mostly from Pakistan 

and Iran. Over 4.4 million were assisted by UNHCR in the largest repatriation 

operation in UNHCR’s history. However, the era of mass returns has largely 

ended, with about 112,000 returning in 2010 and 68,000 returning in 2011. The 

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

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

returns.

It is unlikely that all of the remaining 2.7 million registered Afghans in 

Pakistan and Iran will repatriate. As of May 31, 2012, UNHCR reports that only 

13,295 Afghans have repatriated thus far this year. UNHCR and IOM’s 
45

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 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 the absorptive capacity for returnees to Afghanistan 

improves. UNHCR is working with the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan 

and the international community to develop policies and programs to sustain 

voluntary returns, while also better managing the residual Afghan population in 

Pakistan by working towards longer-term protection and migration solutions. IOM 

is seeking a greater role in border management and in developing regional 

mechanisms for economic migration that would bolster protection for Afghans.

Since 2008, over 978,000 IDPs and refugees have returned to their homes in 

Iraq, with IDPs comprising the vast majority of these returns. Over 85 percent of 

all returns have been to Baghdad and Diyala, a province northeast of Baghdad. 

This trend generally matches displacement patterns as over 80 percent of all IDPs 

and 70 percent of all refugees were displaced from those locations. UNHCR 

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

conditions of safety and dignity are not yet in place. UNHCR is working with 

some Iraqis in neighboring countries on an individual basis to facilitate voluntary 

returns to Iraq. In 2011, some 67,000 Iraqi refugees returned to Iraq and registered 

for assistance through the Iraqi government or UNHCR. Through June 2012, 

23,000 refugees have returned from Syria and 39,650 refugees have returned to 

Iraq from other locations.

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, the number of Tamils seeking to return has grown. 

In the first quarter of 2012, UNHCR assisted in the voluntary return of 408 Tamils 

to Sri Lanka. 

Local Integration 

Few countries in the region offer local integration to refugees. UNHCR, 

together with the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran agreed to a 

Solutions Strategy for Afghan refugees to Support Voluntary Repatriation, 

Sustainable Reintegration, and Assistance to Host Countries which provides for 

the orderly, voluntary return of Afghan refugees and emphasizes the need to fully 

reintegrate returned refugees into their communities. In March 2010, the 

government of Pakistan approved the Afghan Management Strategy, which 
46

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

Pakistan through 2012. Pakistan has not indicated what will happen when POR 

cards expire, but the U.S. will continue to seek opportunities to promote local 

integration options. In partnership with the government of Pakistan and UNDP, 

UNHCR launched the Refugee-Affected and Hosting Areas (RAHA) 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. The RAHA 

initiative is widely regarded as a success and will be expanded into the Federally 

Administered Tribal Areas in 2012. 

Stabilizing the displaced Afghan population – e.g., reintegrating returning 

refugees and IDPs into the Afghan society, preserving asylum space for refugees in 

neighboring countries – is critical to regional stability, as well as addressing 

irregular migration. Through a unique quadripartite consultative process, the 

Islamic Republics of Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan and UNHCR have agreed on a 

multi-year regional strategy, endorsed by the international community in May 2012 

to address assistance to Afghan refugees and returnees, emphasizing cross-border 

linkages.

Syria hosted nearly 90,000 UNHCR-registered Iraqi refugees as of May 31, 

2012. Iraqis do not need a visa to enter Syria. They receive a stamp upon entry, 

which allows for six months of residence and should be renewed at the local 

government offices. Because of the continuing violence in Syria, many Iraqis have 

fled the country. The government of Jordan requires visas for Iraqis and has 

instituted an additional visa category for Iraqis coming to Jordan since unrest broke 

out in Syria in 2011. Few Iraqis are receiving these visas, but UNHCR 

nevertheless reports some Iraqi arrivals from Syria and the government of Jordan

continues to preserve first asylum and protection space for Iraqi refugees and 

remains a generous host.

Iraqis in Syria and Jordan are not legally defined as refugees, but rather as 

guests. Both governments allow UNHCR to register Iraqis. With help from the 

international community, the governments of Syria and Jordan have allowed Iraqi 

students to enroll in public schools. However, enrollments in both countries have 

been lower than anticipated. Recently, Iraqi school children in Syria have become

targets of harassment. In both Syria and Jordan, Iraqi refugees have access to the 

public health care systems. Although the government of Jordan has granted access 

to several legal labor sectors to Iraqis, few have obtained work permits. Iraqis do 

not have access to the legal labor market in Syria.
47

In an acknowledgement that many Iraqi IDPs will not be able to return to 

their home communities, and instead require support integrating into their areas of 

displacement, the government of Iraq recently announced the provision of a new 

2.5 million dinar grant ($2,100) for IDPs who choose local integration. UNHCR 

and other international partners are also seeking to support local integration as a 

viable option for IDPs, but they point out that, in addition to the integration grant, 

it will be important for displaced Iraqis to be able to access services in their areas 

of displacement.

While Turkey ratified the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and acceded to its 

1967 Protocol, the Turkish government acceded to the Protocol with a geographic 

limitation acknowledging refugees only from Europe. While most asylum seekers 

are thus not considered refugees under Turkish law, the Turkish government grants 

temporary refuge and temporary local integration possibilities to refugees 

recognized by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), usually 

pending their referral to a potential resettlement country. As of February 2012, 

there were 25,220 persons registered with UNHCR Turkey, the majority from Iraq 

(10,863) and Iran (5,488). In addition to the Syrian influx into Turkey over the 

past year, Turkey has also seen substantial, increased arrivals of Iraqis and 

Iranians. UNHCR-recognized refugees and asylum seekers in Turkey are assigned 

to one of 51 satellite cities. Provincial governments are responsible for meeting 

their basic needs, including by providing access to employment, healthcare, and 

education although support varies from one location to another.

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 39 settlements for Tibetans located 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 long-staying ethnic Afghan refugees. 

Naturalization clinics were established to support the citizenship process for Hindu 

and Sikh Afghans, and UNHCR intensified its efforts to ensure that all eligible 
48

refugees had submitted applications for Indian citizenship by December 31, 2009. 

As a result, 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, to a lesser extent, Iranians, during FY 2013. 

The United States recognizes that the possibility of third-country 

resettlement must be available to the most vulnerable Iraqi refugees, and has 

processing facilities in Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, and Istanbul. 

While most Iraqis gain access to the USRAP via a referral from UNHCR, we are 

also facilitating direct access to the USRAP for Iraqis with close U.S. affiliations in 

those processing locations where hosting governments permit. The passage of the 

Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act, enacted January 28, 2008, created new categories of 

Iraqis who are eligible for direct access (P-2) to the USRAP, both inside and 

outside Iraq. Currently, beneficiaries of P-2 categories who may seek access to the 

USRAP in Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq include: 

1. Iraqis who work/worked on a full-time basis as interpreters/translators for 

the U.S. government, MNF-I in Iraq, or U.S. Forces-Iraq; 

2. Iraqis who are/were employed by the U.S. government in Iraq; 

3. Iraqis who are/were employees of an organization or entity closely 

associated with the U.S. mission in Iraq that has received U.S. 

government funding through an official and documented contract, award, 

grant or cooperative agreement;

4. Iraqis who are/were employed in Iraq by a U.S.-based media organization 

or non-governmental organization; 

5. Spouses, sons, daughters, parents, and siblings of individuals described in 

the four categories above, or of an individual eligible for a Special 

Immigrant Visa as a result of his/her employment by or on behalf of the 

U.S. government in Iraq, including if the individual is no longer alive, 

provided that the relationship is verified; and

6. Iraqis who are the spouses, sons, daughters, parents, brothers, or sisters of 

a citizen of the United States, or who are the spouses or unmarried sons 

or daughters of a Permanent Resident Alien of the United States, as 

established by their being or becoming beneficiaries of approved familybased I-130 Immigrant Visa Petitions.
49

The United States has increased its in-country processing capacity nearly 

200 percent since establishing a Resettlement Support Center in Baghdad in FY 

2008 and looks to continue to expand that capacity in FY 2012 and FY 2013. 

Although security and logistical challenges associated with operating an RSC in 

Iraq limit in-country processing capacity, it is likely that refugee admissions from 

Iraq will soon exceed those from some neighboring countries. Refugee processing 

in Iraq is a high priority for the United States as it directly benefits Iraqis 

associated with U.S. efforts in Iraq. DHS continues to devote substantial resources 

to Iraqi refugee processing and maintains a robust interview schedule in the region. 

Middle Eastern and South Asian refugees in most of Europe avail 

themselves of the asylum systems of the countries in which they are located. In 

Vienna, however, certain Iranian religious minorities (Baha’is, Zoroastrians, Jews, 

Mandaeans, and Christians) may be processed for U.S. resettlement using special 

procedures authorized by the government of Austria. Though RSC Vienna has 

experienced a marked decrease in new applications since FY 2008, FY2011 saw an 

increase in new applications with the expiration of Lautenberg legislation in May 

2011. The Lautenberg legislation was subsequently re-authorized in December, 

2011, allowing new applications to be filed and be adjudicated under Lautenberg 

guidelines. The United States also processes Iranian religious minorities (primarily 

Baha’i) and other Iranians in Turkey through special procedures involving fasttrack refugee status determination and referral by UNHCR.

Resettlement processing for Bhutanese refugees in Nepal is continuing 

smoothly and the United States remains committed to considering for resettlement 

as many refugees as express interest. As of April 2012, UNHCR had referred over 

90,000 Bhutanese refugees for resettlement to a host of countries and more than 

65,000 of these Bhutanese refugees 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 resettlement 

efforts. 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. UNHCR also refers a small number of refugees out of Sri Lanka. We 

continue to explore modalities for processing vulnerable Tibetan refugees in the 

region.
50

FY 2012 U.S. Admissions

We estimate the admission of approximately 30,000 refugees from the 

region in FY 2012. These will include some 15,000 Bhutanese, 12,000 Iraqis, 

3,000 Iranians and several hundred Afghans, including a small group of women 

who had been living in Iran processed through the UNHCR Emergency Transit 

Center in Slovakia. 

FY 2013 U.S. Resettlement Program

The proposed regional ceiling for refugees from the Near East and South 

Asia for FY 2013 is 31,000, including vulnerable Iraqis, Bhutanese, Iranians, 

Pakistanis, and Afghans. We expect individual UNHCR referrals of various 

religious and ethnic groups in the region, including Assyrians, Mandeans, and 

Iranian Kurds. In addition, Ahmadi Muslims in many locations and Afghans in the 

former Soviet Union, Pakistan, India, and elsewhere will be included. Small 

numbers of Iraqi and other refugee groups who fled Libya are also scheduled for 

processing.

Proposed FY 2013 Near East/ South Asia program to include arrivals from the 

following categories: 

Priority 1 Individual Referrals 13,500

Priority 2 Groups 17,000

Priority 3 Family Reunification 500

Total Proposed Ceiling 31,000
51

DOMESTIC IMPACT OF REFUGEE ADMISSIONS

In FY 2011, the USRAP admitted 56,424 refugees from 58 countries. More 

than half were originally from either Burma or Bhutan. (See Table III.)

The demographic characteristics of refugee arrivals from the 20 largest 

source countries (representing 100 percent of total arrivals) in FY 2011 illustrate 

the variation among refugee groups. The median age of all FY 2011 arrivals was 

24 years and ranged from 17 years for arrivals from the Central African Republic 

to 36 years of age for arrivals from Iran. In FY 2011, 47.8 percent of all arriving 

refugees were female and 52.2 percent of all arriving refugees were male. Males 

predominated among refugees from Eritrea (73.8 percent), Sudan (60.8 percent), 

and Palestine (60.3 percent). (See Table IV.)

Of the total arrivals in FY 2011, some 9.4 percent were under the age of 

five, 24.8 percent were of school age, 66.3 percent were of working age, and 3.5 

percent were of retirement age. (See Table V.) Considerable variation among 

refugee groups can be seen among specific age categories. Refugees under the age 

of five ranged from a high of 16.5 percent among Central African Republic arrivals 

to a low of 2.8 percent of those from Iran. The number of school-aged children 

(from five to 17 years of age) varied from a high of over 47.2 percent of arrivals 

from the Central African Republic to a low of 11.4 percent of those from Iran. The 

number of working-aged refugees (16 to 64 years of age) varied from a high of 

84.3 percent of those from Eritrea to a low of 40.7 percent of individuals from the 

Central African Republic. Retirement-aged refugees (65 years or older) ranged 

from a high of 9.9 percent of arrivals from Iran to a low of less than one percent of 

those from Burundi and Rwanda. 

During FY 2011, 63 percent of all arriving refugees resettled in 12 states. 

The majority were placed in Texas (10 percent), followed by California 

(8.8 percent), New York (6.3 percent), Pennsylvania (5.3 percent), Florida (5.2 

percent), Georgia (4.7 percent), and Michigan (4.6 percent). The states of Arizona 

(3.8 percent), Washington (3.8 percent), North Carolina (3.8 percent), Illinois (3.4 

percent,) and Minnesota (3.3 percent) also were in the top twelve states where 

refugees were resettled. (See Table VI.)
52

TABLE III

Refugee Arrivals By Country of Origin

Fiscal Year 2011

Country of Origin

Arrival 

Number % of Total

Afghanistan 428 0.76%

Angola 2 0.00%

Bhutan 14,999 26.58%

Burma 16,972 30.08%

Burundi 110 0.19%

Cambodia 5 0.01%

Central African Republic 182 0.32%

Chad 25 0.04%

China 28 0.05%

Colombia 46 0.08%

Congo 27 0.05%

Cuba 2,920 5.18%

Dem. Rep. Congo 977 1.73%

Egypt 6 0.01%

Eritrea 2,032 3.60%

Ethiopia 560 0.99%

Former Soviet Union* 1,226 2.17%

Gabon 3 0.01%

Gambia 7 0.01%

Ghana 1 0.00%

Guatemala 5 0.01%

Guinea 1 0.00%

Guinea-Bissau 4 0.01%

Honduras 5 0.01%

India 5 0.01%

Indonesia 1 0.00%

Iran 2,032 3.60%

Iraq 9,388 16.64%

Ivory Coast 7 0.01%

Jordan 3 0.01%
53

Kenya 1 0.00%

Korea, North 23 0.04%

Kuwait 5 0.01%

Laos 211 0.37%

Lebanon 2 0.00%

Liberia 121 0.21%

Libya 1 0.00%

Malaysia 4 0.01%

Mauritania 3 0.01%

Nepal 10 0.02%

Netherlands 1 0.00%

Nigeria 1 0.00%

Pakistan 54 0.10%

Palestine 136 0.24%

Rwanda 74 0.13%

Senegal 1 0.00%

Sierra Leone 28 0.05%

Somalia 3,161 5.60%

Sri Lanka (Ceylon) 69 0.12%

Sudan 334 0.59%

Sweden 1 0.00%

Syria 29 0.05%

Thailand 4 0.01%

Togo 5 0.01%

Tunisia 1 0.00%

Uganda 10 0.02%

Vietnam 119 0.21%

Zimbabwe 8 0.01%

TOTAL 56,424 100.00%

Source: Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Refugee Processing Center
54

TABLE IV

Median Age and Gender of Refugee Arrivals, Fiscal Year 2011

Rank

(# of 

Arrivals) Country of Origin

Refugees

Admitted

Median

Age

%

Females

%

Males

1 Burma 16,972 22 46.64% 53.36%

2 Bhutan 14,999 28 49.58% 50.42%

3 Iraq 9,388 28 47.99% 52.01%

4 Somalia 3,161 21 54.35% 45.65%

5 Cuba 2,920 35 49.73% 50.27%

6 Eritrea 2,032 25 26.23% 73.77%

7 Iran 2,032 36 50.10% 49.90%

8 Former Soviet Union* 1,226 29 51.96% 48.04%

9 Dem. Rep. Congo 977 19 51.48% 48.52%

10 Ethiopia 560 24 46.61% 53.39%

11 Afghanistan 428 23 49.77% 50.23%

12 Sudan 334 22 39.22% 60.78%

13 Laos 211 20 45.02% 54.98%

14 Central African Republic 182 17 50.00% 50.00%

15 Palestine 136 26 39.71% 60.29%

16 Liberia 121 22 52.07% 47.93%

17 Vietnam 119 24 53.78% 46.22%

18 Burundi 110 21 45.45% 54.55%

19 Rwanda 74 22 47.30% 52.70%

20 Sri Lanka (Ceylon) 69 23 40.58% 59.42%

21 All Other Countries 373 27 44.50% 55.50%

TOTAL 56,424 24 47.80% 52.20%

Source: Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Refugee Processing Center
55

TABLE V

Select Age Categories of Refugee Arrivals, Fiscal Year 2011

Rank

(# of 

Arrivals) Country of Origin

Under 

5 Yrs

School 

Age 

(5-17)

Working 

Age

(16-64)

Retirement 

Age

(=or > 65)

1 Burma 13.29% 28.38% 60.89% 1.26%

2 Bhutan 7.59% 22.41% 69.25% 5.10%

3 Iraq 8.77% 21.70% 68.34% 4.43%

4 Somalia 9.90% 34.67% 59.70% 0.70%

5 Cuba 3.84% 20.03% 71.92% 6.92%

6 Eritrea 4.43% 12.99% 84.30% 0.64%

7 Iran 2.76% 11.42% 78.79% 9.89%

8 Former Soviet Union* 10.52% 24.88% 60.52% 8.40%

9 Dem. Rep. Congo 10.95% 40.23% 55.48% 0.20%

10 Ethiopia 10.89% 25.00% 67.68% 0.36%

11 Afghanistan 6.31% 33.64% 66.36% 0.93%

12 Sudan 13.17% 28.14% 59.58% 1.20%

13 Laos 9.00% 43.60% 50.24% 2.37%

14 Central African Republic 16.48% 47.25% 40.66% 0.55%

15 Palestine 10.29% 26.47% 66.18% 3.68%

16 Liberia 4.96% 42.15% 58.68% 4.13%

17 Vietnam 3.36% 38.66% 63.87% 0.84%

18 Burundi 11.82% 26.36% 67.27% 0.00%

19 Rwanda 9.46% 43.24% 54.05% 0.00%

20 Sri Lanka (Ceylon) 8.70% 26.09% 65.22% 1.45%

21 All Other Countries 5.90% 30.56% 68.90% 1.34%

TOTAL 9.35% 24.76% 66.32% 3.49%

NOTE: Totals may exceed 100 percent due to overlapping age categories.

Source: Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Refugee Processing Center
56

TABLE VI

Refugee Arrivals By State of Initial Resettlement, Fiscal Year 2011

STATE

Refugee 

Arrivals

Amerasian 

Arrivals

Total

Arrivals

% of 

Total Arrivals 

to U.S.

Alabama 89 0 89 0.16%

Alaska 87 0 87 0.15%

Arizona 2,168 0 2,168 3.84%

Arkansas 3 0 3 0.01%

California 4,987 0 4,987 8.84%

Colorado 1,557 0 1,557 2.76%

Connecticut 447 0 447 0.79%

Delaware 16 0 16 0.03%

District of Columbia 33 0 33 0.06%

Florida 2,906 0 2,906 5.15%

Georgia 2,636 0 2,636 4.67%

Idaho 730 0 730 1.29%

Illinois 1,937 0 1,937 3.43%

Indiana 1,191 0 1,191 2.11%

Iowa 331 0 331 0.59%

Kansas 327 0 327 0.58%

Kentucky 1,363 5 1,368 2.42%

Louisiana 271 0 271 0.48%

Maine 197 0 197 0.35%

Maryland 1,283 0 1,283 2.27%

Massachusetts 1,544 4 1,548 2.74%

Michigan 2,588 0 2,588 4.59%

Minnesota 1,841 0 1,841 3.26%

Mississippi 2 0 2 0.00%

Missouri 941 0 941 1.67%

Nebraska 734 4 738 1.31%

Nevada 325 0 325 0.58%

New Hampshire 517 0 517 0.92%

New Jersey 378 5 383 0.68%

New Mexico 155 0 155 0.27%
57

STATE

Refugee 

Arrivals

Amerasian 

Arrivals

Total

Arrivals 

% of 

Total Arrivals 

to U.S.

New York 3,529 0 3,529 6.25%

North Carolina 2,120 8 2,128 3.77%

North Dakota 362 0 362 0.64%

Ohio 1,691 0 1,691 3.00%

Oklahoma 268 5 273 0.48%

Oregon 763 0 763 1.35%

Pennsylvania 2,972 0 2,972 5.27%

Rhode Island 157 0 157 0.28%

South Carolina 142 0 142 0.25%

South Dakota 490 0 490 0.87%

Tennessee 1,241 0 1,241 2.20%

Texas 5,627 9 5,636 9.99%

Utah 838 0 838 1.49%

Vermont 361 0 361 0.64%

Virginia 1,333 0 1,333 2.36%

Washington 2,137 0 2,137 3.79%

West Virginia 9 0 9 0.02%

Wisconsin 760 0 760 1.35%

Total 56,384 40 56,424 100.00%

Note: Arrival figures do not reflect secondary migration.

Source: Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Refugee Processing Center
58

TABLE VII

ESTIMATED FUNDING FOR REFUGEE PROCESSING, MOVEMENT, AND RESETTLEMENT

FY 2012 AND FY 2013 ($ MILLIONS)

AGENCY

ESTIMATED

FY 2012

(BY DEPARTMENT)

ESTIMATED 

FY 2013

(BY DEPARTMENT)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

 Refugee Processing $23.0 $26.3*

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

 Refugee Admissions $484.2** $367*** 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families,

Office of Refugee Resettlement

 Refugee Resettlement 

 $508.4  $630.4** **

TOTAL $1,062.0 $1,064.7

The estimated FY 2013 figures above reflect the President’s FY 2013 Budget request and do not 

include carryover funds from FY 2012, which will be determined at the end of FY 2012.

* Includes new cost factors to reflect Headquarters facilities rent related to the refugee 

resettlement program and following-to-join refugee processing, in addition to certain ICASS 

costs.

** Includes FY 2012 MRA appropriation of $340 million, $77.5 million in carryover from FY 

2011, $60.7 million projected IOM loan collections/carryover, and $6 million in prior FY 

recoveries. A portion of these funds will be carried forward into FY 2013. 

*** Includes FY 2013 MRA budget request of $310 million, $51 million in projected IOM loan 

collections/carryover, and an estimate of $6 million in prior year MRA recoveries during FY 

2013. Funds carried forward from FY 2012 will also be available in FY 2013. 

**** 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 includes 

approximately $16M of carryover funding obligated in FY 2012; it does not include costs 

associated with the Unaccompanied Alien Children’s Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF), Medicaid, or Supplemental Security Income programs.
59

TABLE VIII

UNHCR Resettlement Statistics by Resettlement Country

CY 2011 Admissions

RESETTLEMENT 

COUNTRY TOTAL

PERCENT OF TOTAL

RESETTLED

United States* 43,215 70.10%

Canada 6,827 11.07%

Australia 5,597 9.08%

Sweden 1,896 3.08%

Norway 1,258 2.04%

Denmark 606 0.98%

Finland 573 0.93%

Netherlands 479 0.78%

New Zealand 477 0.77%

United Kingdom 424 0.69%

France 42 0.07%

Switzerland 39 0.06%

Ireland 36 0.06%

Portugal 28 0.05%

Argentina 24 0.04%

Brazil 23 0.04%

Chile 22 0.04%

Germany 22 0.04%

Belgium 19 0.03%

Japan 18 0.03%

Paraguay 13 0.02%

Rep. of Korea 11 0.02%

TOTAL 61,649 100.00%

*Includes departures to the U.S. of individuals referred to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program 

by UNHCR.