San Francisco: In an important decision recently decided by a federal court in California, it was hold that an applicant could qualify for a grant of political asylum based upon the fact they were persecuted for imputed political asylum based upon the fact they were persecuted for imputed political opinion.
In the case, Singh v. Ilchert 801 F. Supp. 313 (ND. Gal. 1992) the U.S, District Judge held that the applicant was eligible for political asylum because he was persecuted by the Indian Police who believed he supported the Sikh militants.
The case also held that torture by the Indian governmental authorities even if possibly lawful under the laws of the India violates International law.
The case also reaffirmed the premise that past persecution can form the basis for a grant of political asylum especially where the persecution was not from a political group but from government Officials or police.
In addition, the case rejected the idea that if the persecution would only occur in a region of the country then the applicant docs not qualify for political asylum. If the applicant would be recognized as member of the group anywhere within the country, he would still be subject to possible persecution.
The court held that where the political asylum Claim is based upon past persecution, the burden ‘shifts to the U.S, government to prove that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of present and future persecution despite this past persecution.
Since this is a California federal court case it will be of interest and importance to those persons seeking to apply for political asylum in California. This is especially true in view of the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year in INS v. Elias Zacarias.__U.S._, 112 S. Ct 812 (1992) which severely restricted the granting of political asylum based upon imputed political opinion.
Article extracted from this publication >> March 26, 1993
