Honourable committee members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
In light of the proposed amendments to Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, I would like to address serious failures in the U.S. refugee protection system. I have worked as a lawyer and scholar on refugee issues for more than three decades, and I'm recognized internationally as an expert.
It is my opinion that the U.S. fails to protect individuals entitled to protection under international standards. In my opening statement, I will attempt to provide an overview of key aspects of U.S. law that result in a failure of protection of bona fide refugees.
I will begin with the denial of protection to women fleeing gender-based violence and individuals fleeing violent gangs. The United States' overly restrictive interpretation of the refugee definition categorically denies relief for survivors of domestic violence and other gendered harms. UNHCR has long counselled state parties to the refugee convention and protocol to interpret the refugee definition to include claims of women fleeing gender-based violence. Canada was a leader, being the first country to issue guidelines in 1993.
The U.S. resisted, and it was only in 2014, after 15 years of protracted litigation, that our highest immigration tribunal, in a case by the name of “Matter of A-R-C-G-”, accepted that women victims of domestic violence could qualify for refugee protection. The principles in A-R-C-G- not only were positive for women fleeing domestic violence but were more broadly applicable to gender claims, and the decision was a decisive step forward.
After coming into office, the Trump administration wiped out that precedent with former attorney general Sessions deciding a case, “Matter of A-B-”, that vacated A-R-C-G-. In his decision, Sessions made the broad sweeping pronouncement that, quote, “Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum.”
Administrative adjudicators have interpreted A-B- as Sessions intended—to foreclose claims involving women—and have also invoked A-B- to deny claims involving fear of gangs. I want to make it very clear that these are not cases where there's any doubt about the credibility of the applicant or the extreme gravity of the harm she has suffered. These denials are made on the basis of the attorney general's decision alone.
I also want to turn to the issue of detention and family separation. These policies have posed serious barriers to individuals seeking protection.