为什么庇护造假很猖獗，因为法律总不改（立法有问题），有法条也不执行（执法有问题），司法也有问题

法律 签证与身份（美国）
1

很少有人研究庇护专门研究过 INA 的啊（这不是个常识么），我一看我就都明白了，INA 是庇护的基础。我们看一下 INA 就知道为啥庇护造假无法杜绝了。只要有这三条就无法杜绝。

潭里面还有人问，例如不需要证据的那种庇护，现在行不行？那我的回答就是，庇护是基于 INA 208 ，一切都要根据基本法。批准庇护是基于 INA 208 。如果想改变这个基本法（庇护不需要证据），需要国会修改 INA ，重新立法。由于美国的移民法总是不改，庇护从古至今都是一样的啊，顶多就是出一个判例，例如 BIA 出判例说在美国生多少孩子都不算。

第一条，申请庇护不需要任何证据，只要口头能说得天衣无缝就行了。

Burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the applicant for asylum to establish that he or she is a refugee as defined in section 101(a)(42) of the Act. The testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration. The fact that the applicant previously established a credible fear of persecution for purposes of section 235(b)(1)(B) of the Act does not relieve the alien of the additional burden of establishing eligibility for asylum.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/part-208/section-208.13#p-208.13(a)

第二条，不能让第三方知道这人申请了庇护，意思是给去母国调查增加难度。

§ 208.6 Disclosure to third parties. Information contained in or pertaining to any application for refugee admission, asylum, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act, or protection under regulations issued pursuant to the Convention Against Torture’s implementing legislation, records pertaining to any credible fear determination conducted pursuant to § 208.30, and records pertaining to any reasonable fear determination conducted pursuant to § 208.31, shall not be disclosed without the written consent of the applicant, except as permitted by this section or at the discretion of the Secretary.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/section-208.6

第三条，有法不依，这条法律形同虚设，从来没有被单独拎出来执行过。而且只有法律规定回国可以酌情考虑（may）取消庇护身份，没有法律规定回国可以取消庇护绿卡。政府懒得管。

而且就算取消，取消一个庇护身份，能上诉到 SCOTUS 的。

Asylum granted under subsection (b) does not convey a right to remain permanently in the United States, and may be terminated if the Attorney General determines that-

(D) the alien has voluntarily availed himself or herself of the protection of the alien’s country of nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the alien’s country of last habitual residence, by returning to such country with permanent resident status or the reasonable possibility of obtaining such status with the same rights and obligations pertaining to other permanent residents of that country; or

司法也有问题，例如 Conjecture and Speculation ，这是不能用来拒绝庇护的。这人能安全离开他的国家，你猜测他没受过迫害，这是猜测，猜测不能用来拒绝庇护。

联合国的难民手册还有这么一段，就是说，中国会特意让这些人快点早点离开中国，因为不想他们在中国境内继续捣乱了。联合国都帮着洗地。

48. Possession of a passport cannot therefore always be considered as evidence of loyalty on the part of the holder, or as an indication of the absence of fear. A passport may even be issued to a person who is undesired in his country of origin, with the sole purpose of securing his departure, and there may also be cases where a passport has been obtained surreptitiously. In conclusion, therefore, the mere possession of a valid national passport is no bar to refugee status.

https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/4d93528a9.pdf

2

其实还是因为美国需要大量低价劳动力去做美国人不想做的工作,但是因为各种原因不能像香港一样直接引入外劳签证系统。还有一波人是因为美国当年打了很多仗,输了只能把盟友的人接来(现在不搞了,要把阿富汗盟友赶走了,估计美军以后都找不到带路党了)而且现有系统还没出什么大事所以就随他去了。这也是为什么学生→工作→移民难这么多,因为真的是和美国人竞争工作(除了部份不可取代的顶尖人才)。难不成大家以为美国真的圣母心爆发让大家来灯塔追梦吗

3

对于第二条，是允许把资料交给dos进行背调的。甚至在其他可行方法无效时uscis还可以联系外国领事馆以获取信息。

page 60-61

而且即使在符合所有要求的情况下，依然可以拒绝庇护。这个时候就需要走 preponderance of evidence standard的 withholding和 CAT deferral了。这两个即使grant也是非常受限，所以其实INA给了行政足够的自由裁量权。

4

可以调查，例如这人身份是否真实。不能随便调查，例如不能直接针对 claim 的庇护核心事实调查，不能去找中国警察去问是否迫害了这个人。

这里有一个 case ，美国驻广州领事馆，把一个坐牢释放证明发给广州监狱调查，广州监狱说是假的。第二巡回法官认为领事馆违反了 208 Confidentiality ，故而领事馆报告不可靠，不予采纳。

Petitioner Zhen Nan Lin (“Lin”) (Case No. A75 559 667), a citizen and native of the People’s Republic of China, petitions this court for review of the January 28, 2004, decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversing Immigration Judge (IJ) Annette S. Elstein’s grant of asylum and withholding of removal. In re Zhen Nan Lin, No. A75 559 667 (B.I.A. Jan 28. 2004), rev’g No. A75 559 667 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 1, 2002). Lin entered the United States without inspection along the Canadian border in August 1997, and on November 28, 1997, applied for asylum based on his political persecution by the Chinese government. The IJ found that Lin’s story of imprisonment and political persecution was credible and that he qualified for asylum and withholding of removal. The IJ dismissed as unreliable a report from the United States Consulate in Guangzhou (the “Consular Report”), stating that the certificate of release from prison (the “Certificate of Release”) that Lin submitted in support of his asylum application was a forgery. Further, the IJ held that the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)1 had violated Lin’s right to confidentiality by sending a copy of the Certificate of Release to the Prison Administration Bureau of Guangdong**2** Province (the “Prison Bureau”).

The INS appealed, and the BIA reversed the IJ’s decision. Relying on the Consular Report, the BIA concluded that the Certificate of Release was a forgery, and, therefore, that Lin’s testimony was not credible. The BIA also held that the government had not violated Lin’s confidentiality. Lin argues on appeal that the BIA’s adverse credibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence and that the government’s disclosure has made it more likely that he will be persecuted upon his return to China. We agree that the government violated the confidentiality guarantee of 8 C.F.R. § 208.6. We further conclude that the BIA’s adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence as it was based on the unreliable Consular Report. Accordingly, the petition for review is granted.

如果庇护证词没有毛病，没有任何 negative factors，不能拒绝庇护，否则是 abuse of discretion。庇护是联邦上诉法院可以 review 的，没毛病就给拒绝了，上诉到巡回法院，肯定被 remand 回来。

庇护的自由裁量权指的是，例如庇护一般要求在来美一年之内申请，这人超过了一年，就可以酌情决定是否批准庇护。如果这人有轻微违法记录。从前的签证申请是否诚实，是合法入境还是偷渡入境。这些情况，可以考虑是否拒绝庇护，批准 withholding of removal 。

而且批准庇护不是看是否符合要求，是找毛病。

8 U.S. Code § 1252 - Judicial review of orders of removal

(D) the Attorney General’s discretionary judgment whether to grant relief under section 1158(a) of this title shall be conclusive unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.

(1) An alien’s manner of entry or attempted entry is a proper and relevant discretionary factor to consider in adjudicating asylum applications.

(2) The circumvention of orderly refugee procedures can be a serious adverse factor in determining whether to grant asylum; however, it should not be considered in ouch a way that the practical effect is to deny relief in all cases.

(3) The circumvention of the immigration laws is only one of a number of factors which should be balanced in exercising discretion, and the weight accorded to this factor may vsuy depending on the facts of a particular case.

(4) The circumvention of orderly refugee procedures alone is insufficient to require the most unusual showing of countervailing equities. Matter of Salim, 18 I&N Dec. 311 (BIA 19821 modified

…

Instead of focusing only on the circumvention of orderly refugee procedures, the totality of the circumstances and actions of an alien in his flight from the country where he fears persecution should be examined in determining whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. Among those factors which should be considered are whether the alien passed through any other countries or arrived in the United States directly from his country …

2 个赞
5

批评行政和立法都很正常，政治机构就是拿来给大家出气的 :sweat_smile: 批评司法这件事情要前瞻后顾一下是否真的妥当，各国左派右派目前都有无端点名司法机构的端倪

虽然 IJ 并不是严格意义上司法机构的一部分，但是对准司法机构也应该稍微放尊重一点 :distorted_face: 出气的话骂骂政府差不多了

6

说能平安离开国家不能证明这人没受过迫害，这话是巡回法官说的。

到了联邦上诉，巡回法官说啥，啥就成为法律标准，成为判例。

只要是有个这个判例在，下面的 IJ BIA 不管怎么闭眼瞎判，只要是违反了联邦上诉法院定下的规矩，肯定是要被打回来的。只不过是欺负没钱上诉的人。

7

法官当然会犯错，但是如果判例里面有纰漏，等到下一个适合的个案被上诉到同法庭或者更高的法庭，自有方法处理。如果民众或者政客因为个案的判决攻击司法的话，司法一没法自辩，二没法在没有新的上诉的情况下主动改判例。

攻击政府和立法机构不一样，因为他们随时可以主动改变自己的政策和法律。而且这里你认为错误的判词是上诉庭对 INA 的一种见解，就算这个 holding 是 ratio 来的，那也只是对 INA 的解释，如果国会修改 INA 增加一个条款说你回原籍国就构成不需要庇护甚至庇护欺诈的 rebuttable presumption 不就好了？

政府自己不上诉，也不想办法促进国会这么修法就是从一种程度上认可了上诉庭的这个见解，本质上最后需要问责的也是政府和国会。政治机构有很大的灵活性解决你提到的这些问题，法庭没有。

1 个赞
8

巡回法院的判例已经是终审，而且针对这个问题的这个意见很多年都不会变。下一步是最高法。

虽然理论上最高可以到 supreme court 但是 practically speaking 巡回法院就是终审。

美国的 statutory law 一旦定下了，好几十年都不会改的。

9

again 这个是立法机构消极怠惰、不作为的情况，你就应该狠狠批判立法机构的这种 complacency，而不是批评法庭。

终审不代表见解正确，SCOTUS 也要不定时检查自己之前的见解，但是不正确不是一个很好的批评司法的理由。因为就算他是正确的，他也不可能出来自辩。要问责找政治机构去，他们的任务就是被选民问责。

10

这是普通法国家。法条是很模糊的，怎么解释法条，是 judicial branch 的工作。庇护的判例要么是 BIA 定下的，要么是联邦法院定下来的，联邦法院是司法 branch 。

你如果说要立法把事儿都干了，你就是不让 judicial branch 来解释法律，就是把三权分立的司法权给拆了。

他是巡回法官，他能创造法律。他创造的法律，很久都不会被后来的人推翻，instead 是被后来引用作为 precedent 。

11

(3) Failure to register and falsification of documents

(A) Change of address

An alien who has failed to comply with the provisions of section 1305 of this title is deportable, unless the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful.

这条在我有生以来，从来都没听说过被贯彻落实过，这可不是立法的锅

12

国会付出高成本去加强审查庇护造假在政治上的好处是什么？

最多给强烈排外选民一点心理满足吧。

还不如多颁布几条给金主有利的法律。

13

就唠唠呗，人们在唠嗑的过程中，就会学到很多法律知识。

14

嗯，挺好的。

权力只对权力的来源负责。华人几乎没有任何政治价值（甚至连利用的价值都没有），所以几乎没有法律制定者在乎华人，华人只能服从为了各种各样利益群体制定的法条。

看看有生之年，华人会不会有多一点点的价值。上车焊门说实在的没什么意义，就像蚂蚁叫的再凶，对于人类也没有任何意义，甚至完全关注不到蚂蚁有没有在叫。

15

你咋跑了呢，回来聊天，你提出点意见，就能引出更多的法律。 @King_of_Water

这段，不仅仅是加一条 mandatory termination of asylum status or LPR due to voluntarily returning to countries of persecution 的问题。

问题是比这个复杂很多的。 在庇护 adjudication 的时候，案子一看就很假，庇护申请中有超过一半的案子都是这样的，你一看就是假的，司法判例说，是不能用看起来很假的理由来拒绝庇护的。这是 speculation 。这也是关键的一个为啥庇护造假很猖獗的原因。

16

那我要问一个问题，这个国家的政府就有问题，为什么人们大多都是骂假庇护的，而不去骂这个政府呢。两个是都该骂的。

why do they just blame the players and why don’t they blame the game

17

弱者拔刀向更弱者，人都是害怕强大的，欺负弱小的。特别是骂骂假庇护的，可以显得自己更优越，“我不一样，我是合法的”，“我不一样，我是绿卡”，“我不一样，我是公民”。总是幻想自己遵纪守法，对社会没有公害，为了建设社会付出一力，必定是这个社会的重要一部分。说实在的，在法律制定者眼中没多大区别，你会去在意一只松鼠的胖瘦吗，反正都没有什么价值。

另外，权力对权力的来源负责。没有政治价值的群体，不被政治在乎，这有什么稀奇古怪的。就像买东西要付钱一样。

18

Can immigrants be more patriotic than native-born Americans?

As a whole, immigrants tend to be more patriotic then native born Americans in my experience.

Yes, especially those who have come to the US as adults.

Yes, it depends on what you associate with being patriotic. If you mean solely love for the nation, then I’d say many immigrants are.

Oh absolutely. I live in a community mostly made up of immigrants and the 4th of July celebrations here are unlike anything I’ve ever seen. It’s all unofficial too.

Sure being an American isn’t a ethnicity. Immigrants can easily embrace the nationality to an extreme degree. Especially if they come from less then ideal circumstances.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/13dkb61/can_immigrants_be_more_patriotic_than_nativeborn/

19

这也是我观察到的，很多归化成美国国籍的对美国有强烈的归属感，皈依者狂热嘛。但是对于法律制定者没有什么政治价值。他们的支持与否没办法撼动选举。没有政治价值，就别想着法律制定者考虑他们的死活。

20

为什么对于造假，白人比华人更宽容。就像签证，一般遇到白人比华人好过。

据我观察，在美国好几代的华人，对于造假，比第一代和第二代华人更宽容。

有些华人虽然出生在美国，但是明显跟第一代没区别，中文读写都太好了。