Supreme Court Ruling Changes Asylum Law

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that U.S. government officials have the right to determine the fate of a person seeking asylum in the U.S. who was forced into persecuting, torturing, or murdering people.

Under current U.S. law, people seeking asylum must be denied if they participated or assisted in the persecution of any person due to race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, or political opinion.  The Supreme Court's ruling calls for the federal government's Board of Appeals to take into account whether or not participation in the persecution was voluntary. Previously, the the asylum-seeker's motives were irrelevant.

The issue was brought to the attention of the court in the case of Daniel Negusie. Negusie was denied asylum in the U.S. because he had served as a guard in an Eritrean military group, where inmates were tortured and killed.

Negusie argued that he was forced to act as a prison guard, or risk being killed himself.  He also said he never personally beat or killed anyone, although he did witness torture and was ordered to mistreat prisoners.

After escaping from the prison where he served as a guard, he fled to the U.S. where he sought asylum.

Negusie's attorneys argued that the asylum laws should only be applied to those who voluntarily participated in persecution, torture, and murder.

Eight of the justices on the high court were in favor of the new law.  Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter, who felt asylum should be denied whether participation was voluntary or not.

For more information about asylum laws, click here to find an immigration attorney near you.