Opinion ID: 781977
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legal Protections for Refugees

Text: 27 United States law extends two forms of relief to refugees: asylum and withholding of deportation. Associated with each is a different burden of proof, which in both cases is borne by the applicant. See Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 285 (2d Cir.2000). It is easier to establish eligibility for asylum, but the power to grant asylum to eligible aliens is discretionary, and reserved to the Attorney General. See id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b). By contrast, the Attorney General must withhold the deportation of an alien who passes the stricter test for this form of relief. See Diallo, 232 F.3d at 285. 28 To establish eligibility for asylum, a petitioner must show that he is a refugee within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, i.e., that he has suffered past persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on these grounds. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); Diallo, 232 F.3d at 284. A showing of past persecution sets up a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, which is overcome only if a preponderance of the evidence establishes that a change in circumstances in the applicant's country of nationality has occurred such that the applicant's fear is no longer well-founded. Guan Shan Liao, 293 F.3d at 67 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)). 29 To be entitled to a withholding of deportation, the refugee must further establish that it is more likely than not that, were he deported, his life or freedom would be threatened on account of one of the privileged grounds mentioned above. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Diallo, 232 F.3d at 284-85. Again, a showing of past persecution threatening life or freedom creates a presumption of threats to life and freedom upon return. This presumption is overcome only if a preponderance of the evidence establishes that conditions in the country have changed to such an extent that it is no longer more likely than not that the applicant would be so persecuted there. Diallo, 232 F.3d at 285 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2)). 30 In 1996, Congress augmented the definition of refugee as follows: 31 [1] [A] person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and 32 [2] a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion. 33 IIRIRA § 601(a), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). 34 Soon thereafter, the BIA ruled (i) that a male applicant for asylum may stand in his wife's shoes and apply for asylum based on her forced abortion or sterilization, (ii) that the presumption of future persecution following such imposed medical procedures cannot be rebutted absent changed country conditions, and (iii) that forced sterilization or abortion threatens the life or freedom of the victim, and thus, absent changed country conditions, entitles her—or her spouse—to a withholding of deportation. In re C-Y-Z-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 915, 1997 WL 353222 (BIA June 4, 1997).