U S vs Germany asylum adjudication procedures
Asylum Adjudication Procedures: U.S. vs Germany
1. United States Asylum Adjudication
Legal Framework:
Governed primarily by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and regulations administered by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
Asylum seekers must establish they qualify as refugees under the INA: a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
The process includes:
Affirmative asylum applications before USCIS.
Defensive asylum claims in removal proceedings before an immigration judge.
Appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and then federal courts.
Key Case Law:
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (1987)
Facts: Clarified the standard of proof for asylum applicants.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that asylum applicants must show a “reasonable possibility” of persecution, a lower standard than that required for withholding of removal.
Significance: This case established that the asylum standard is more generous than withholding of removal, impacting adjudications nationwide.
Matter of Mogharrabi (BIA, 1987)
Issue: Defined the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum.
Holding: The BIA clarified that a credible fear of persecution can be based on a reasonable possibility, not necessarily a probability.
Significance: This became a foundational decision for asylum adjudications.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)
Though not directly about asylum, this case established the Chevron deference doctrine, where courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations, affecting asylum decisions by USCIS and EOIR.
Matter of Acosta (BIA, 1985)
Issue: Interpretation of “particular social group.”
Holding: Defined it as a group with a shared, immutable characteristic.
Significance: Influences many asylum claims based on social group membership.
2. German Asylum Adjudication
Legal Framework:
Governed primarily by the Asylum Act (AsylG) and the Residence Act (AufenthG).
The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) conducts initial asylum procedures.
German courts review decisions in administrative courts.
Germany is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and EU directives (e.g., the Qualification Directive), which shape asylum law and standards.
Key Case Law:
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) — Soering v. United Kingdom (1989)
Though a UK case, it influences German asylum law through human rights standards.
Holding: The Court held that extradition violating the right to life and prohibition of torture is illegal.
Significance: Sets standards for non-refoulement applied by Germany.
BVerwG (Federal Administrative Court) — Case on Dublin Regulation (2017)
Facts: Addressed the application of the Dublin Regulation, which determines the EU member state responsible for an asylum claim.
Holding: The court ruled on conditions for transferring asylum seekers within the EU.
Significance: Influences Germany’s procedural handling of asylum claims and transfers.
Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) — Refugee Status Decision (2018)
Issue: Judicial review of BAMF decisions.
Holding: Emphasized the need for proper legal standards and adequate reasoning in asylum decisions.
Significance: Strengthened procedural guarantees in German asylum adjudication.
ECJ (European Court of Justice) — Case C-411/10 N.S. (2011)
Issue: Protection from transfer to member states where asylum seekers may face inhuman treatment.
Holding: ECJ ruled transfers under Dublin regulation must respect fundamental rights.
Significance: Directly affects German asylum procedure related to transfers.
Comparative Summary
| Aspect | United States | Germany |
|---|---|---|
| Governing Law | Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) | Asylum Act, Residence Act, EU directives |
| Agency | USCIS, EOIR, DOJ | BAMF, Administrative courts |
| Judicial Review | BIA, Federal courts | Administrative courts, Federal Constitutional Court |
| Standard of Proof | “Well-founded fear” — reasonable possibility | Similar under EU Qualification Directive, plus human rights standards |
| Key International Law | Refugee Convention incorporated into INA | Refugee Convention, ECHR, EU law |
| Notable Principles | Chevron deference, particular social group | Dublin Regulation adherence, non-refoulement |
Summary
The U.S. asylum system emphasizes administrative adjudication by immigration judges with federal appellate review and applies standards set by Supreme Court and BIA precedents.
Germany’s system relies on the BAMF’s administrative decisions with robust judicial review in administrative courts and adherence to EU and ECHR human rights frameworks.
Both systems emphasize non-refoulement, protection against persecution, and procedural safeguards, though Germany’s system is strongly influenced by EU law and supranational courts.
Key U.S. cases like Cardoza-Fonseca and Matter of Acosta shape asylum eligibility, while German and European courts ensure asylum procedures align with fundamental rights and EU law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments