Another case in the 9th Circuit re: forced abortion and asylum for the husband:
-Immigration Law-
Attorney general’s interpretation of INA Sec. 101(a)(42)–that statute does not prevent the spouse of a person who has physically undergone a forced abortion or sterilization procedure from qualifying for political asylum–was entitled to Chevron deference. Forced abortion, in which alien was not a willing participant, and alien’s continued attempts to cohabit and marry in contravention of China’s population control policy, in the face of denial of an official marriage license, constituted “other resistance to a coercive population control program” required to establish persecution. Alien established persecution on account of his resistance to a coercive population control policy where he was expelled from school due to his romantic relationship with his future wife, which was legally prohibited; detained after attempting to obtain a marriage license; forced to pay a heavy fine to secure his release; resisted China’s official population control policy of prohibiting underage marriage by organizing and participating in a traditional wedding ceremony; and was forced to go into hiding when authorities arrived at his home and attempted to arrest him on the day of the wedding. Protections of Sec. 101(a)(42)(B) apply to husbands whose marriages would be legally recognized but for China’s coercive family planning policies, and not only to husbands whose marriages are recognized by Chinese authorities.
Jiang v. Holder
Asylum
Appeal asylum
Asylum applicants
Asylum meaning
Filed under: Asylum Application | Tagged: asylee, asylum, asylum 2.0, Asylum Applicants, Asylum Application, asylum attorney, asylum officer, asylum petition, california asylum attorney, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog 