Title	BRIEF OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT in case GRACE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Publisher	UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
Publication Date	28 September 2018
Country	United States of America
Topics	Asylum policy | Domestic violence | Gang related violence | Non-state agents of persecution | Social group persecution | State protection
Citation / Document Symbol	Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-01853-EGS
Other Languages / Attachments	Injunction Order December 10, 2018
Cite as	UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), BRIEF OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT in case GRACE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 28 September 2018, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-01853-EGS, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5bb3a2be4.html [accessed 24 May 2023]
Comments	new policies have interpreted the refugee definition in a manner at variance with the United States’ international obligations on a number of fronts: First, in assessing state protection, the new policies recast the “unable or unwilling” standard into one requiring a showing of “complete helplessness” or “condoned” action. Second, the new policies misconstrue the requirements for defining a particular social group, and further elevate a threshold that was already too high by international standards. Third, the new policies misapply the nexus requirement, creating an unjustified barrier to persons fleeing gang and domestic violence. Fourth, the new policies apply all of the aforementioned standards to the credible fear interview process—a process that should screen out only “clearly abusive” or “manifestly unfounded” claims. Imposing these standards at the initial screening stage jeopardizes the ability of decision-makers to recognize meritorious claims, thereby increasing the risk that the United States will be at variance with its obligation to non-refoulement.