Torture victims living in the San Francisco Bay Area have condemned recent congressional efforts to limit the rights of refugees to apply for asylum in the United States. Legislation pending in the U.S. Congress would permit an immigration officer to make an immediate decision on the asylum claim of an applicant who arrives &t a port of entry without proper immigration documents. If the officer finds that the applicant’s claim is not a substantial one, the refugee would be returned to his home country without any further hearing.

Jagraj Singh, one of the torture victims who condemned the legislation, fled India after being arrested and brutally tortured by the Indian security forces on two occasions on suspicion of supporting Sikh separatists who are fighting for an independent state. While holding Singh in custody, the Indian police ripped out his toe nails and shot him al point blank range ~ in the leg. He still bears the physical and psychological scars of his torture.

Singh sought asylum after arriving with false immigration documents at San Francisco International airport in’ 1991. He was denied asylum, however, by an immigration judge in San Francisco and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the administrative body that hears asylum appeals from around the United States. Last year, however, U.S.District Court Judge Marilyn Patel reversed the BIA, found Singh eligible for asylum and sent the case back to the immigration judge for a new hearing. After more than a year in detention, Singh was then released. Last month, the immia judge granted Singh asylum.

Under the proposed legislation, certain immigration officers would be allowed to determine whether applicants like Singh have a substantial claim to asylum. If the officer decides that the applicant has no substantial claim, the applicant would be summarily excluded from the United States. The summary exclusion proposals are gaining increased attention in the Congress and the media because of the recent influx of Chinese asylum seekers in California and New York.

Most of the torture victims who condemned the legislation had been found at the time of their arrival to lack a substantial claim to asylum. Many of the torture victims, however, challenged the denial of their asylum claims and won.

In early 1992, for example, the INS found that a Sri Lankan Tamil, E.S. [name withheld], did not have a credible claim to asylum despite the fact that she had been arrested and tortured by the Sri Lankan authorities on three separate occasions. She was detained in San Pedro, California for over a year while she fought her case in the courts. She was denied asylum by an immigration judge in Los Angeles and the BLA, OnJune1, 1993; however, U.S. District Court Judge Mariana R.P faelzer reversed the BIA and found her eligible for asylum.

Several of the refugees who condemned the legislation will be available at the press conference to answer questions regarding how the summary exclusion provisions would have endangered their lives.

For further info. contact: Robert Jobe (415) 9565513, Mark Silverman (415) 2559499.

Article extracted from this publication >>  June 25, 1993