State of Hawaii v. Trump
Filing
361
OPINION of USCA as to #346 Notice of Appeal, filed by U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Rex Tillerson, John F. Kelly, United States of America, Donald J. Trump, 9CCA NO. 17-16426: The district court's order modifying the preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED. "The mandate shall issue five days after the filing of this opinion." (Attachments: #1 Webcite ) (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParties served by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Modified on 9/14/2017 (emt, ).
(43 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 6 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(46 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 9 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(47 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 10 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(48 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 11 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(49 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 12 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(51 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 14 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(52 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 15 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(53 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 16 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(54 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 17 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(55 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 18 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(56 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 19 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(57 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 20 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(58 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 21 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(59 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 22 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(60 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 23 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(61 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 24 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(62 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 25 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(63 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 26 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(64 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 27 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(65 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 28 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(66 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 29 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(67 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 30 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(68 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 31 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(69 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 32 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(70 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 33 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(71 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 34 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(72 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 35 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(73 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 36 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(75 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 38 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(78 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 41 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(82 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 45 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(83 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 46 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(84 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 47 of 137
PROPOSED REFUGEE ADMISSIONS
FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2017
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS
SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO THE
COMMITTEES ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
AND
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
IN FULFILLMENT OF THE wa
aREQUIREMENTS OF
mbe
of H Septe(e)
SECTIONS 207(d)(1) and
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch OF THE
6
1642
7I-MMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
1
No.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
(85 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 48 of 137
INTRODUCTION
This Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2017: Report to the
Congress is submitted in compliance with Sections 207(d)(1) and (e) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Act requires that before the start of
the fiscal year and, to the extent possible, at least two weeks prior to consultations
on refugee admissions, members of the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate
and the House of Representatives be provided with the following information:
(1) A description of the nature of the refugee situation;
(2) A description of the number and allocation of the refugees to be admitted
and an analysis of conditions within the countries from which they came;
(3) A description of the plans for their movement and resettlement and the
estimated cost of their movement and resettlement;
(4) An analysis of the anticipated social, economic, and demographic impact
of their admission to the United States; 1
(5) A description of the extent to which other countries will admit and assist
in the resettlement of such refugees;
(6) An analysis of the impact of the participation of the United States in the
resettlement of such refugees on the foreign policy interests of the United
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
States; and
i'i
be
awa
(7) Such additional information asfmay beeptem
o H S appropriate or requested by such
ate
in St ived on
members.
cited , arch
426
This report . 17-16 information as required by Section 602(d) of the
contains
No
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-292, October 27,
1998, 112 Stat. 2787) (IRFA) about religious persecution of refugee populations
eligible for consideration for admission to the United States. This report meets
the reporting requirements of Section 305(b) of the North Korean Human Rights
Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-333, October 18, 2004, 118 Stat. 1287) by
providing information about specific measures taken to facilitate access to the
United States refugee program for individuals who have fled “countries of
particular concern” for violations of religious freedoms, identified pursuant to
Section 402(b) of the IRFA.
i
Detailed discussion of the anticipated social and economic impact, including secondary migration, of the
admission of refugees to the United States is being provided in the Report to the Congress of the Refugee
Resettlement Program, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Department of Health and Human Services.
i
(86 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 49 of 137
FOREWORD
On the occasion of World Refugee Day, June 20, President Obama reaffirmed our nation’s commitment to helping refugees and our leading role in
providing safe haven. This commitment comes in the midst of an unprecedented
global migration and refugee crisis. There is currently a higher number of
refugees, asylum-seekers, and internally displaced persons – more than 65 million
– than at any time on record. The United States leads the world in providing
humanitarian aid to crises overseas and also accepts more refugees for
resettlement through the United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) than any other
country.
While starting life anew in the United States may be daunting, it also offers
hope and unparalleled opportunity. It is a chance not only to escape from violence
and persecution but to make a fresh start. The assistance the American people
provide helps newcomers find their footing and become a part of their new
communities. Refugees are not the only ones who benefit; they add to America’s
vitality and diversity and make substantial contributions to our economic and
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
cultural life.
be
awa
of H Septem
State
incountry edaon
Resettlement incitthird rchivis solution for some of the world’s most
a ed
6, a
vulnerable refugees. As64matter of principle, the U.S. Refugee Admissions
1a 2
Program (USRAP) 17
No. offers the possibility of resettlement to refugees regardless of
their location, national origin, health status, occupational skills, or level of
educational attainment.
U.S. Resettlement Program Growing
In FY 2016, the Administration aims to reach the ceiling of 85,000 refugee
arrivals established by the President, and in FY 2017 will strive to admit 110,000
refugees. This represents a 57 percent increase over a two-year period from the
70,000 refugees admitted to the United States in 2015. In the current fiscal year,
more refugees are likely to be resettled to the United States from the Near
East/South Asia region than in any year on record, as well as more refugees from
Africa than in any of the past dozen years. In order to achieve this, the
Department of State and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) expanded
operations in Jordan, Tanzania, and Uganda, interviewing nearly 25,000 refugee
applicants. By co-locating and surging staff, the USRAP significantly reduced the
time between certain steps in the process, including UNHCR referral, prescreening, DHS interview, and medical screening, and thus decreased overall
processing time without curtailing the program’s robust security checks.
ii
(87 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 50 of 137
Increasing the refugee admissions ceiling
to 110,000 in FY 2017 will require cooperation
among several U.S. government agencies,
including close interagency coordination on
security checks and other requirements. As a
public-private partnership, the program also
depends on the support of American nongovernmental organizations, charities, faithbased groups and thousands of volunteers and
caring people in hundreds of communities
across the country.
Leaders’ Summit on Refugees
“Today, on World Refugee Day, we
recognize the challenges and hardships that
refugees face, honor their courage and
resilience in the face of overwhelming
obstacles, and celebrate their many
valuable contributions to our Nation.
This year’s commemoration comes as the
UN High Commissioner for Refugees
reports that more people are displaced by
rising violence, insecurity, and persecution
than at any time on record. More than 65
million people around the world – more
than the population of France, or California
and Texas combined – have been driven
from their homes. More than half are
children. The scale of this human suffering
is almost unimaginable; the need for the
world to respond is beyond question.
On September 20, 2016, President
Obama will host the Leaders’ Summit on
Refugees at the United Nations for countries
Every day, members of the international
that have made new and significant
community, humanitarian organizations,
commitments to increase international
civil society, and individual citizens work
to assist these vulnerable populations. For
humanitarian assistance; to create greater
p
Trum the 2017
opportunities for legal resettlement or other ai'i v. our part, 12,United States provides more
humanitarian assistance to refugees than
er
legal pathways for admission to safe of Haw epteanyb
countries; m other nation and maintains the world’s
S
ate
largest refugee resettlement program. We
and to enact policies that allow refugees to be
in St ived on
d
citeincreasing the
support programs that provide food, water,
rch
self-reliant, including by 26, a
4
shelter, and medical care to refugees, and
number of refugees17-16
o. worldwide in school by one fight for their rights to safety, dignity and
N
million, and the number of refugees granted the long-term livelihood opportunities.
legal right to work by one million.
President Obama also launched a private
sector Call to Action in advance of this year’s
UN General Assembly to draw on the expertise,
resources and entrepreneurial spirit of the
private sector to help refugees. The Call to
Action asks companies to make “new,
measurable and significant commitments that
will have a durable impact on refugees residing
in countries on the frontlines of the global
refugee crisis and in countries of resettlement,
like the United States.” The Call to Action is
focused on generating corporate commitments
iii
Today, we commemorate the spirit and
strength of refugees worldwide and the
dedication of those who help them on and
after their journeys. Protecting and
assisting refugees is a part of our history as
a Nation, and we will continue to alleviate
the suffering of refugees abroad, and to
welcome them here at home, because doing
so reflects our American values and our
noblest traditions as a Nation, enriches our
society, and strengthens our collective
security.”
President Barack Obama
June 20, 2016
In commemoration of World Refugee Day
(88 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 51 of 137
in three key areas: facilitating access to
education; increasing employment
opportunities for refugees; and helping
refugees to get the resources they need to
become self-reliant. Commitments can be
directed towards refugees resettled in the
United States or located anywhere in the world.
Syrian Resettlement on the Rise
“Today, we honor refugees’ resilience and
courage. We also recognize the
tremendous contributions made by local
and international non-governmental
organizations on the front lines of
delivering life-saving assistance. This
year’s commemoration comes at a time
when brutal conflicts are forcing record
numbers of innocent people to flee, and
challenging the world to find better ways
to protect them. The war in Syria alone
has displaced more than 11 million people
– half of that nation’s pre-war population.
Millions more have fled Daesh’s atrocities
in Iraq, civil wars in Yemen and South
Sudan, political violence in Burundi, and
Boko Haram’s rampages through Nigeria,
Cameroon, Niger, and Chad.
The refugee crisis caused by the conflict
in Syria is the worst the world has witnessed in
a generation, generating more than 5 million
refugees in the region. The U.S. government is
deeply committed to assisting the Syrian
people and has provided nearly $5.6 billion in
humanitarian assistance since the start of the
The number of forcibly displaced people is
crisis, more than any other donor. While the
the largest ever recorded. Sixty-five
p
vast majority of Syrians would prefer to return
Trum 2, are17
v.millionrpeople20 refugees, internally
home when the conflict ends, it is clear thatwai'i displaced1 seeking asylum, five million
be or
a
of H Septem than a year ago.
some remain extremely vulnerablete their n
more
a in
in St ivefrom
do
countries of asylum andtwould benefit
ci ed , arch
The refugees we welcome to the United
resettlement. The United 426 will meet or
16 States
States will join previous generations who
17exceed the goal of. admitting 10,000 Syrian
No
have come to this country to escape
refugees in FY 2016 and aims to admit a
violence and persecution – threats to
significantly higher number in FY 2017.
human life and dignity that remain all too
The United States is one of 32 countries
that have agreed to accept referrals from
UNHCR as part of its ambitious international
effort to secure permanent or temporary
resettlement for up to 10 percent of Syrian
refugees. As of mid-2016, UNHCR has
secured commitments from these countries to
admit more than 220,000 Syrians for
permanent resettlement, humanitarian
admission, private sponsorship, or academic
scholarships.
iv
real today. History celebrates such
moments when we have overcome bias
and fear, and opened our doors. Those
who have walked through them have made
immeasurable contributions to our
community of citizens and enriched our
lives. Their achievements are a testament
to the potential all humans have to heal, to
overcome loss, to start over, and to the
obligation we share, to give future
generations that chance.”
Secretary John Kerry
June 20, 2016
In commemoration of World Refugee Day
(89 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 52 of 137
Protecting Vulnerable Children and Others in Central America
In December 2014, the Administration established an in-country refugee
and parole program for children in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Under
the initial program, lawfully present parents in the United States could file to
bring their unmarried children under age 21 to join them in this country, and in
certain circumstances, an in-country parent could be approved to travel with the
approved child to the United States. In July 2016, the Administration announced
an expansion of the program to include the following relatives, when
accompanied by a child under age 21: sons and daughters age 21 and older and/or
married, the biological parent of the child even if not married to the U.S.-based
lawfully present parent, and certain caregivers who are also related to the U.S.based lawfully present parent. As of August 2016, parents have submitted more
than 9,500 applications and more than 700 children have arrived to join parents in
the United States. Thousands more will be joining parents in the coming months
as an increasing number of interviews have been conducted and applications are
being approved.
In July 2016, the Government of Costa Rica announced that it had entered
into a protection transfer arrangement (PTA) with UNHCR and017 International
the
ump
v. Tr r 12, 2individuals and
i'i to vulnerable
Organization for Migration to provide protection
a
Haw ptembe
ofand Honduras. Under the PTA, Costa
families from El Salvador, Guatemala,
ate
n Se
in St tovhostoCentral Americans awaiting
ed
Rica will serve as a temporary site hi
cited , arc
completion of their refugee26
164 application process and onward resettlement to the
. 17- third country. For cases not requiring immediate transfer
United States or o
N another
to Costa Rica, we have also moved to establish an in-country referral program for
residents of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Under this program,
UNHCR will assist in identifying vulnerable individuals who will be considered
for refugee protection in the United States after being screened and interviewed
by the U.S. Government in their countries of origin.
Ensuring National Security in the Refugee Admissions Program and Combatting
Fraud
The USRAP continues to employ rigorous security measures to protect
against threats to our national security and is committed to deterring and detecting
fraud among those seeking to resettle in the United States.
Refugees of every nationality are subject to the highest level of security
checks for any category of traveler to the United States. This multi-step
screening process includes intensive biographic and biometric screening
involving multiple federal intelligence, security, and law enforcement agencies
including the National Counterterrorism Center, the Federal Bureau of
v
(90 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 53 of 137
Investigation, and the Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security.
A step-by-step guide to the process is posted at the following link:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-processrefugee-entry-united-states.
The USRAP continues to work on an interagency basis not only to
maintain the highest rigor in screening refugee applicants, but also continually to
seek ways to strengthen existing procedures.
Sharing Best Practices on Resettlement and Integration
Beginning in mid-2015, interest in refugee resettlement in the United
States, Canada, and Europe has surged. National and local resettlement agencies
in the United States have reported receiving a remarkable number of offers of
assistance including donations of household and personal goods, housing, and
willingness to ‘sponsor’ or befriend refugees. At the same time, some elected
officials have publicly stated their opposition to resettling certain refugees in their
states. These dynamics have sparked a debate about admitting refugees to this
country and increased interest in learning more about the p
program in communities
Trum 2, 2017
large and small throughout the country.
1
i'i v.
awa tember
fH
o
The White House Task Force on New Sep
State ed on Americans was established by
in
President Obama in November archiv strengthen integration efforts nationwide
cited , 2014 to
26
and build welcoming7communities for all immigrants, including refugees. As
-164
1
No.
stated in the preamble to the one-year progress report, this interagency effort was
launched “to develop a coordinated federal strategy to better integrate new
Americans into communities and support state and local efforts to do the same.”
Sixteen core goals and 48 recommendations were made to enhance the civic,
linguistic, and economic integration of new Americans. Various campaigns,
initiatives, pilots, partnerships, websites, and best practices were launched and
shared by federal agencies, state and local governments, White House offices,
businesses, educators, community and faith-based organizations, and
philanthropists.
Numerous foreign government and civic leaders approached the United
States this year to learn about the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and to seek
information about establishing or improving refugee resettlement programs in
their countries. The Department of State has been deeply involved in helping to
design programs for groups visiting the United States who are interested in
refugee resettlement and integration, and in showcasing the best examples of
successful local and national programs. These groups have met with federal
officials, toured national resettlement agency headquarters, and visited dozens of
local communities throughout the country to meet representatives from the public
vi
(91 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 54 of 137
and private agencies and organizations that welcome refugees and other
immigrants every day.
Conclusion
America’s reputation as a nation of refuge provides a beacon of hope for
persecuted people around the world and serves as a model for new resettlement
nations. Through the USRAP, our government, cooperating private partners, and
American citizens in communities throughout the country demonstrate day in and
day out the generosity and core values of our nation.
No.
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
1
vii
(92 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 55 of 137
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Foreword
i
ii
I.
OVERVIEW OF U.S. REFUGEE POLICY
1
II.
REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM FOR FY 2017
5
Proposed Ceilings
5
Unallocated Reserve
6
Admissions Procedures
6
Eligibility Criteria
6
Priority 1: Individual Referrals
7
Priority 2: Group Referrals
8
FY 2017 Priority 2 Designations
9
Priority 3: Family Reunification Cases
12
FY 2017 Priority 3 Nationalities
14
Following to Join Reunification Cases
14
ump , 2017 15
DHS/USCIS Refugee Adjudications 'i v. Tr
12
i
The Eligibility Determination Hawa tember
16
f
te o on Sep
Background SecuritySta
17
n Checks d
ive
ted i of archDepartment of State
ci
Processing Activities 6, the
17
42 Services
Overseas 17-16
Processing
17
o.Orientation
N
Cultural
18
Transportation
19
Reception and Placement (R&P)
19
Office of Refugee Resettlement
20
III.
REGIONAL PROGRAMS
Africa
Religious Freedom
Voluntary Repatriation
Local Integration
Third-Country Resettlement
FY 2016 U.S. Admissions
FY 2017 U.S. Resettlement Program
viii
24
25
26
27
29
30
30
31
(93 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 56 of 137
East Asia
32
Religious Freedom
34
Voluntary Repatriation
36
Local Integration
37
Third-Country Resettlement
37
FY 2016 U.S. Admissions
37
FY 2017 U.S. Resettlement Program
37
Europe and Central Asia
38
Religious Freedom
41
Voluntary Repatriation
42
Local Integration
42
Third-Country Resettlement
43
FY 2016 U.S. Admissions
44
FY 2017 U.S. Resettlement Program
44
Latin America and the Caribbean
44
Religious Freedom
46
Voluntary Repatriation
46
Local Integration
46
Third and In-Country Resettlement
47
p
FY 2016 U.S. Admissions
017 49
Trum
i'i v. ber 12, 2
FY 2017 U.S. Resettlement Program
49
awa
of H Septem
Near East and South Asia te
50
a
in St ived on
Religious Freedom
52
cited , arch
6
Voluntary Repatriation
54
1642
. 17Local Integration
55
No
Third-Country Resettlement
58
FY 2016 U.S. Admissions
60
FY 2017 U.S. Resettlement Program
60
IV.
DOMESTIC IMPACT OF REFUGEE ADMISSIONS
ix
61
(94 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 57 of 137
LIST OF TABLES
Page
I.
Refugee Admissions in FY 2015 and FY 2016,
Proposed Refugee Admissions by Region for FY 2017
5
II.
Proposed FY 2017 Regional Ceilings by Priority
24
III.
Refugee Arrivals by Country of Origin, FY 2015
62
IV.
Median Age and Gender of Refugee Arrivals, FY 2015
65
V.
Select Age Categories of Refugee Arrivals, FY 2015
66
VI.
Refugee Arrivals by State of Initial Resettlement, FY 2015
67
VII. Estimated Funding of Refugee Processing, Movement, and
Resettlement FY 2016 and FY 2017
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
VIII. UNHCR Resettlement Statistics fby awa embeCountry,
H Resettlement
te o on Sept
CY 2015
n Sta
ted i archived
ci
426,
7-16
1
No.
x
69
70
(95 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 58 of 137
I.
OVERVIEW OF U.S. REFUGEE POLICY
At the end of 2015, the estimated refugee population worldwide stood at
21.3 million, with 16.1 million under the mandate of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This represents an increase of 1.7 million
refugees under UNHCR mandate in one year. The United States actively supports
efforts to provide protection, assistance, and durable solutions to these refugees, as
these measures fulfill our humanitarian interests and further our foreign policy and
national security interests. Under the authority of the Migration and Refugee
Assistance Act of 1962, as amended, the United States contributes to the programs
of UNHCR, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the
International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations Relief and
Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and other
international and non-governmental organizations that provide protection and
assistance to refugees, internally displaced persons (IDPs), victims of conflict,
stateless persons, and other vulnerable migrants. These contributions are used to
address the legal and physical protection needs of refugees and to furnish basic
assistance such as water, sanitation, food, health care, shelter, education, and other
services. The United States monitors these programs to ensure the most effective
use of resources, maximizing humanitarian impact for rthe beneficiaries.
ump
17
v. T r 12, 20
i'i
awa te be
of H Sethat m refugees desire safe,
The United States and UNHCR recognize p most
ate
on
in St Inv2015, some 201,400 refugees voluntarily
voluntary return to their homelandrchi ed
ted
ci
a
repatriated to their country 426,
16 of origin – a nearly 60% increase over 2014, but
17unfortunately, still low. Refugee repatriation operations brought refugees home to
No.
Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, and Central African Republic, among others. These
operations were carried out to protect returning refugees as well as to help them
contribute to the stabilization, reconstruction, and development of their home
countries.
Where opportunities for refugees’ safe and voluntary return remain elusive,
the United States and its partners pursue self-sufficiency and temporary, indefinite,
or permanent local integration in countries of asylum. The Department of State
encourages host governments to protect refugees and to allow them to integrate
into local communities. The State Department further promotes local integration
by funding programs to enhance refugee self-reliance and support communitybased social services. Groups that have availed themselves of opportunities for
local integration in recent years include Afghans in India, Angolans in Zambia,
Burundians in Tanzania, Liberians and Sierra Leoneans in seven countries across
West Africa, and Colombians in Ecuador, Costa Rica, Panama and Venezuela.
Mali agreed to provide birth certificates to some 8,000 Mauritanian refugee
children, paving the way for them to eventually apply for Malian citizenship.
1
(96 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 59 of 137
UNHCR estimates that there are at least 10 million people worldwide who
are not recognized as nationals of any state and are therefore stateless. Without
citizenship in any country, many stateless persons are unable to move freely, to
access basic services such as health care and schools, to work legally, to own
property, or to access police protection and systems of justice. The United States
supports UNHCR’s mandate to prevent and reduce statelessness, including its
Global Campaign to End Statelessness by 2024. The United States is encouraging
States to address gaps in citizenship laws that result in statelessness, to eliminate
provisions that discriminate against women, to facilitate naturalization for stateless
persons, and to ensure universal birth registration. U.S. contributions to UNHCR’s
core budget support efforts to prevent and address statelessness in Burma, the
Dominican Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Nepal, Sudan, Syria, and elsewhere. In
addition, the Department of State seeks to use the U.S. Refugee Admissions
Program (USRAP) to demonstrate leadership and encourage other countries to do
more to help stateless people and refugees in protracted situations. This approach
is reflected in, for example, the current resettlement of protracted Rohingya
refugees from Burma who were born outside Burma, mostly in Malaysia and
Thailand.
The United States, like UNHCR, recognizes that resettlement7in third
ump
1
countries is a vital tool for providing certain refugees protection and/or a durable
v. Tr r 12, 20
ai'i
e perhaps the only,
Ha the best, and
solution. For some refugees, resettlement is w eptemb
te of on S
alternative. In particular, statelessa ived who arrive in the United States for
n St refugees
ted i arch
ci
resettlement not only find a durable solution to their displacement, but are also
426,
placed on a path that17-16
will afford the opportunity to naturalize and resolve their
No.
stateless status.
For more than a decade, the U.S. government has provided financial support
to expand and improve UNHCR’s resettlement capacity, principally by funding
staff and construction of facilities. As a result, UNHCR has substantially increased
referrals to the United States and other resettlement countries, submitting more
than 134,000 individuals for resettlement in 2015 – an increase of nearly 30% over
2014. We plan to continue to work with UNHCR and consult with host
governments on group referrals. We will continue to assess resettlement needs and
allow qualified NGOs to refer refugee applicants to the program.
The United States has also supported UNHCR’s efforts to expand the
number of countries active in resettlement. In 2015, UNHCR referred refugees to
27 countries for resettlement consideration. Over 90 percent of refugees referred
for resettlement were referred to the United States, Australia, and Canada. Smaller
numbers of referrals were made to Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic,
2
(97 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 60 of 137
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, and the United Kingdom.
While the overall number of refugees referred by UNHCR and the
percentages resettled by various countries fluctuate from year to year, the United
States aims to ensure that at least 50 percent of all refugees referred by UNHCR
worldwide are considered for resettlement in the United States, depending on the
availability of funds. Some 64 percent of UNHCR-referred refugees who were
resettled in 2015, were resettled in the United States (see Table VIII).
The foreign policy and humanitarian interests of the United States are often
advanced by addressing refugee issues in asylum and resettlement countries. In
some cases, the United States has been able to use its leadership position in
resettlement to promote and secure other durable solutions for refugees, or advance
other human rights or foreign policy objectives. The United States is by far the
largest single donor to UNHCR, providing over $1.33 billion in FY 2015. During
the past few years, U.S. resettlement efforts in Africa, the Middle East, and East
Asia have helped energize efforts by UNHCR and other countries to ensure that
first asylum is maintained for larger refugee populations mp that017 integration
local
ru and
i v. T
i'to thoseer 12, 2 In certain
a
or third country resettlement are optionsf offered emb in need.
Haw
te o on Sept
locations, the prompt resettlementta politically sensitive cases has helped defuse
n S of
ted i archived
regional tensions.
ci
,
6426
7-1the USRAP has responded to changing circumstances.
During itsNo. 1
history,
The end of the Cold War dramatically altered the context in which the USRAP
operated. The program shifted its focus away from large groups concentrated in a
few locations (primarily refugees from Vietnam, the former Soviet Union, and the
former Yugoslavia) and began to admit refugees representing over 50 nationalities
per year. Today, officials from the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (DHS/USCIS) often conduct refugee
applicant interviews in remote locations and focus on the individuals and
populations who most need third country resettlement opportunities.
While maintaining the United States’ leadership role in humanitarian
protection, an integral part of this mission is to ensure that refugee resettlement
opportunities go only to those who are eligible for such protection and who do not
present a risk to the safety and security of our country. Accordingly, the USRAP is
committed to deterring and detecting fraud among those seeking to resettle in the
United States and continues to employ rigorous security measures to protect
against threats to our national security.
3
(98 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 61 of 137
Refugees resettled in the United States enrich our nation. The USRAP is
premised on the idea that refugees should become economically self-sufficient as
quickly as possible. The Department of State works domestically with agencies
participating in the Reception and Placement (R&P) program to ensure that
refugees receive services in the first 30 to 90 days after arrival in accordance with
established standards. During and after the initial resettlement period, the Office
of Refugee Resettlement at the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS/ORR) provides technical assistance and funding to states, the District of
Columbia, and nonprofit organizations to help refugees become self-sufficient and
integrated into U.S. society. ORR programs use formula and discretionary grants
to provide cash and medical assistance, employment and training programs, and
other services to newly arriving and recently arrived refugees. Refugees arriving
in the United States are expected to be future U.S. citizens. Refugees are
immediately authorized to work upon resettlement in the United States, and after
one year in this country are required to apply for lawful permanent resident status.
Five years after admission, a refugee who has been granted lawful permanent
resident status is eligible to apply for citizenship.
No.
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
1
4
(99 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 62 of 137
REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM FOR FY 2017
PROPOSED CEILINGS
TABLE I
REFUGEE ADMISSIONS IN FY 2015 AND FY 2016
PROPOSED REFUGEE ADMISSIONS BY REGION FOR FY 20172
FY 2015
ACTUAL
REGION
ARRIVALS
FY 2016
FY 2016
CEILING
PROJECTED
ARRIVALS
PROPOSED
FY2017
CEILING
Africa
22,472
25,000
27,500
35,000
East Asia
18,469
13,000
14,000
12,000
Europe and Central Asia
2,363
4,000
4,000
4,000
Latin
America/Caribbean
2,050
3,000
1,500
5,000
ump38,000 17
v. Tr r 12, 20
e
wai'i
69,933e of Ha79,000 temb 85,000
p
Se
at
in St ived on
6,000
cited , arch
426
7-16
Near East/South Asia
24,579
Regional Subtotal
Unallocated Reserve
Total
No.
1
34,000
69,933
85,000
85,000
40,000
96,000
14,000
110,000
Generally, to be considered a refugee, a person must be outside his or her
country of nationality or, if stateless, outside his or her country of last habitual
residence. Additionally, under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) §
101(a)(42)(B), the President may specify circumstances under which individuals
who are within their countries of nationality or last habitual residence may be
considered a refugee for purposes of admission to the United States. The FY 2017
refugee admissions proposal recommends continuing such in-country processing
for specified persons in Iraq, Cuba, Eurasia and the Baltics, Honduras, El Salvador
and Guatemala. Persons for whom resettlement is requested by a U.S. ambassador
in any location in the world may also be considered, with the understanding that
those within their countries of nationality or last habitual residence will only be
referred to the USRAP following Department of State consultation with USCIS at
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Likewise, the U.S. will consider
2
These proposed figures assume enactment by Congress of the President’s Budget levels related to the U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program elements.
5
(100 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 63 of 137
accepting a limited number of referrals from qualified NGOs of highly vulnerable
individuals within their countries of nationality or last habitual residence following
Department of State consultation with USCIS.
Unallocated Reserve
This proposal includes 14,000 unallocated admissions numbers to be used if
needed for additional refugee admissions from any region. The unallocated
numbers would only be used following notification to Congress.
ADMISSIONS PROCEDURES
Eligibility Criteria
The Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
(PRM) is responsible for coordinating and managing the USRAP. A critical part
of this responsibility is determining which individuals or groups from among the
millions of refugees worldwide will have access to U.S. resettlement consideration.
PRM coordinates within the Department of State, as well as with DHS/USCIS and
other agencies, in carrying out this responsibility.
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'iUSRAP shall allocate admissions
Section 207(a)(3) of the INA states thatwa
a the tembe
of H Septo the United States in
among refugees “of special humanitarian concern
tate d on
in Smade by the President after appropriate
accordance with a determinationarchive
cited ,
426
consultation.” Which individuals are “of special humanitarian concern” to the
7-16
United States for the1
No. purpose of refugee resettlement consideration is determined
through the USRAP priority system. There are currently three priorities or
categories of cases:
Priority 1 – Individual cases referred to the program by virtue of their
circumstances and apparent need for resettlement;
Priority 2 – Groups of cases designated as having access to the program
by virtue of their circumstances and apparent need for resettlement; and
Priority 3 – Individual cases from designated nationalities granted access
for purposes of reunification with family members already in the United
States.
(Note: Refugees resettled in the United States may also seek the admission of
spouses and unmarried children under 21 who are still abroad by filing a
“Following to Join” petition, which obviates the need for a separate refugee claim
adjudication. This option is described in more detail in the discussion of
Following to Join cases below.)
6
(101 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 64 of 137
Access to the USRAP under one of the above-listed processing priorities
does not necessarily mean an applicant meets the statutory definition of a
“refugee” or is admissible to the United States under the INA. Applicants who are
eligible for access to the USRAP within the established priorities are presented to
DHS/USCIS officers for interview. The ultimate determination as to whether an
applicant can be admitted as a refugee is made by DHS/USCIS in accordance with
criteria set forth in the INA and various security protocols.
Although the access categories to the USRAP are referred to as “processing
priorities,” it is important to note that entering the program under a certain priority
does not establish precedence in the order in which cases will be processed. Once
cases are established as eligible for access under one of the three processing
priorities, they all undergo the same processing steps.
PRIORITY 1 – INDIVIDUAL REFERRALS
Priority 1 (P-1) allows consideration of refugee claims from persons of any
nationality,3 usually with compelling protection needs, for whom resettlement
appears to be the appropriate durable solution. Priority 1 cases are identified and
referred to the program by UNHCR, a U.S. Embassy, or mp
u a designated NGO.
017
v. Tr rto provide protection to
UNHCR, which has the international mandate ai'i
worldwide 12, 2
be
aw
refugees worldwide, has historicallyte of H the vastm
referred Septe majority of cases to the
on
n Sta
United States under this priority. SomeeNGOs providing humanitarian assistance
ted i archiv d
ci
in locations where there are large concentrations of refugees have also undergone
426,
7-16
training by PRM and1DHS/USCIS and have been designated as eligible to provide
No.
Priority 1 referrals.
Process for Priority 1 Individual Referral Applications
Priority 1 (P-1) referrals from UNHCR and NGOs are submitted to the
appropriate Regional Refugee Coordinator, who forwards the referrals to the
appropriate Resettlement Support Center (RSC) for case processing and scheduling
of the DHS/USCIS interview. PRM’s Office of Admissions reviews embassy
referrals for completeness and may consult with DHS/USCIS in considering these
referrals.
A U.S. ambassador may make a Priority 1 referral for persons still in their
country of origin if the ambassador determines that such cases are in need of
exceptional treatment and the Departments of State (PRM) and Homeland Security
3
Referrals of North Koreans and Palestinians require State Department and DHS/USCIS concurrence before they
may be granted access to the USRAP.
7
(102 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 65 of 137
(DHS/USCIS) concur. When a Priority 1 referral cannot be made, in some limited
cases, a Department of State request to DHS/USCIS for parole may be an
appropriate option.
PRIORITY 2 – GROUP REFERRALS
Priority 2 (P-2) includes specific groups (within certain nationalities, clans,
or ethnic groups; sometimes in specified locations) identified by the Department of
State in consultation with DHS/USCIS, NGOs, UNHCR, and other experts whose
members are in need of resettlement. Some Priority 2 groups are processed in their
country of origin. The process of identifying the group and its characteristics
includes consideration of whether the group is of special humanitarian concern to
the United States and whether individual members of the group will likely be able
to qualify for admission as refugees under U.S. law. Groups may be designated as
Priority 2 during the course of the year as circumstances dictate, and the need for
resettlement arises. PRM plays the coordinating role for all group referrals to the
USRAP.
There are two distinct models of Priority 2 access to the program: open
access and predefined group access, often upon the recommendation of UNHCR.
ump 2017
v. Tr r 12, shared
Under both models, Priority 2 designationsawamade based on
are i'i
be
H
fgeneral,ethese characteristics are the reason
o
ptem
characteristics that define the groupteIn
S
ta
in Spersecuted n the past or face persecution in the
ed o in
members of the group haved
cite beenarchiv
future.
426,
7-16
1
No.
The open-access model for Priority 2 group referrals allows individuals to
seek access to the program on the basis of meeting designated criteria. To
establish an open-access Priority 2 group, PRM, in consultation with DHS/USCIS,
and (as appropriate) with UNHCR and others, defines the specific criteria for
access. Once the designation is in place, applicants may approach the program at
any of the processing locations specified as available for the group to begin the
application process. Applicants must demonstrate that they meet the specified
criteria to establish eligibility for access to the USRAP.
The open-access model has functioned well in the in-country programs,
including the long-standing programs in Eurasia and the Baltics, and in Cuba. It
was also used successfully for Vietnamese for nearly thirty years (1980-2009), and
Bosnian refugees during the 1990s. It is now in use for Iranians belonging
religious minorities, Iraqis with links to the United States, and individuals from El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras with lawfully present parents in the United
States.
8
(103 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 66 of 137
The RSCs responsible for handling open-access Priority 2 applications,
working under the direction of PRM, make a preliminary determination as to
whether individual applicants qualify for access and should be presented to
DHS/USCIS for interview. Applicants who clearly do not meet the access
requirements are “screened out” prior to the DHS/USCIS interview.
In contrast to an open-access group, a predefined group designation is
normally based on a UNHCR recommendation that lays out eligibility criteria that
should apply to individuals in a specific location. Once PRM, in consultation with
DHS/USCIS, has established the access eligibility criteria for the group, the
referring entity (usually UNHCR) provides the biographical data of eligible
refugee applicants for processing. This type of group referral is advantageous in
situations in which the intensive labor required to generate individual UNHCR
referrals would be impracticable, potentially harmful to applicants due to delays, or
counterproductive. Often, predefined groups are composed of persons with similar
persecution claims. The predefined group referral process saves the labor intensive
individual referral step and can conserve scarce UNHCR resources. In recent
years, predefined groups have included certain Burmese in Thailand, certain
Bhutanese in Nepal, and certain Congolese in Tanzaniauand Rwanda. Predefined
mp
17
v. Tr r 12, 20 methods for
i'i criteria and several
group referrals with clear, well-defined eligibility
be
awa
of H as a ptem deterrent as well,
cross-checking group membershipate serven Se fraud
can
o
in St igaining access to the USRAP by falsely
preventing non-group members from ved
cited , arch
claiming group membership.26
64 Once an individual gains access to processing via a
17-1
. other processing steps are the same as for those referred by PP-2 designation,No
all
1, including individual pre-screening and USCIS interviews, and all security and
medical checks.
FY 2017 Priority 2 Designations
In-country processing programs
The following ongoing programs that process individuals still in their
country of origin under Priority 2 group designations will continue in FY 2017, all
of which are “open-access” type P-2s:
Eurasia and the Baltics
This Priority 2 designation applies to Jews, Evangelical Christians, and Ukrainian
Catholic and Orthodox religious adherents identified in the Lautenberg
Amendment, Public Law No. 101-167, § 599D, 103 Stat. 1261 (1989) (codified at
8 U.S.C. § 1157) as amended (“Lautenberg Amendment”), with close family in the
9
(104 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 67 of 137
United States. With annual renewal of the Lautenberg Amendment, these
individuals are considered under a reduced evidentiary standard for establishing a
well-founded fear of persecution.
Cuba
Included in this Priority 2 program are human rights activists, members of
persecuted religious minorities, former political prisoners, forced-labor conscripts,
and persons deprived of their professional credentials or subjected to other
disproportionately harsh or discriminatory treatment resulting from their perceived
or actual political or religious beliefs.
Iraqis Associated with the United States
Under various Priority 2 designations, including those set forth in the Refugee
Crisis in Iraq Act, employees of the U.S. Government, a U.S. government-funded
contractor or grantee, U.S. media or U.S. NGOs working in Iraq, and certain
family members of such employees, as well as beneficiaries of approved I-130
(immigrant visa) petitions, are eligible for refugee processing in Iraq.
Persons in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras Trump
2017
v
i'i in.July er 12, certain lawfully
Under this Priority 2 program that was expanded
awa temb 2016,
of H Saccess to a refugee interview for
present parents in the United States te request ep
a can
in St ived on as well as the biological parent of
sons and daughters stillcited country of origin,
in the
arch
an unmarried child under 642and caregivers.
21, 6,
-1
o. 17
N
Groups of Humanitarian Concern outside the Country of Origin
The following Priority 2 groups are already designated and, in most cases,
undergoing processing with significant arrivals anticipated during FY 2016.
(Additional Priority 2 groups may be designated over the course of FY 2017.)
Pre-defined Group Access P-2s:
Ethnic Minorities and others from Burma in camps in Thailand
Under this existing Priority 2 designation, individuals who have fled Burma, are
registered in one of nine refugee camps along the Thai/Burma border, are
identified by UNHCR as in need of resettlement, and expressed interest prior to
January 2014 (depending on the location), are eligible for processing.
10
(105 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 68 of 137
Ethnic Minorities from Burma in Malaysia
Under this Priority 2 designation, members of ethnic minorities from Burma who
are recognized by UNHCR as refugees in Malaysia and identified as being in need
of resettlement are eligible for processing.
Bhutanese in Nepal
Under this existing Priority 2 designation, Bhutanese refugees registered by
UNHCR in camps in Nepal, identified as in need of resettlement, and expressed
interest prior to June 30, 2014, are eligible for processing.
Congolese in Rwanda
Under this new Priority 2 designation, certain Congolese refugees in Rwanda who
arrived between 1994 and 2005 were verifiably registered in 2011 or 2012 and
identified as in need of resettlement are eligible for processing.
Congolese in Tanzania
Under this Priority 2 designation signed in May 2015, certain Congolese refugees
registered by UNHCR in Tanzania whose residence in Nyaragusu camp was
confirmed in a 2013-2014 UNHCR verification exercise are eligible for
processing.
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
Open Access Model P-2s:
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
Iranian Religious Minorities 26
164
. 17Under this Priority 2 designation, Iranian members of certain religious minorities
No
are eligible for processing and are considered under a reduced evidentiary standard
for establishing a well-founded fear of persecution, pursuant to annual renewal of
the Lautenberg Amendment as amended in 2004 by Sec. 213 of Title II, Division
E, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, P.L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 3 (“the
Specter Amendment”).
Iraqis Associated with the United States
Under various Priority 2 designations, including those set forth in the Refugee
Crisis in Iraq Act, employees of the U.S. government, a U.S. government-funded
contractor or grantee, U.S. media or U.S. NGOs working in Iraq, and certain
family members of such employees, as well as beneficiaries of approved I-130
(immigrant visa) petitions, are eligible for refugee processing. This program is
operating in Jordan and Egypt, in addition to the in-country program in Iraq.
Syrian Beneficiaries of Approved I-130 petitions
Under this new Priority 2 designation, Syrian beneficiaries of approved I-130
immigrant visa petitions, for whom immigrant visas have not yet been issued, are
11
(106 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 69 of 137
eligible for refugee processing. For U.S. citizens, eligible relationships to the U.S.
based petitioner include spouse, children (regardless of age or marital status),
siblings and parents. For lawful permanent residents, eligible relationships to the
petitioner include spouse and unmarried children (regardless of age).
PRIORITY 3 – FAMILY REUNIFICATION
The Priority 3 (P-3) category affords USRAP access to members of
designated nationalities who have immediate family members in the United States
who initially entered as refugees or were granted asylum. At the beginning of each
fiscal year, PRM, in consultation with DHS/USCIS, establishes the list of
nationalities eligible for processing under this priority. The PRM Assistant
Secretary may modify the list during the year, in consultation with DHS/USCIS,
but additions or deletions are generally made to coincide with the fiscal year.
Inclusion on the P-3 list represents a finding by PRM that the nationality is
of special humanitarian concern to the United States for the purpose of familyreunification refugee processing. Eligible nationalities are selected following
careful review of several factors. UNHCR’s annual assessment of refugees in need
of resettlement provides insight into ongoing refugeeTrump
situations which could create
017
i v.
12, 2
i'addition, rprospective or ongoing
the need for family-reunification processing.wIn
a a t mbe
of H interestsemust be weighed in
repatriation efforts and U.S. foreignte
policy
ep
Sta ed on S
in
determining which nationalities should be eligible.
cited , archiv
6
1642
7-has undergone significant changes in recent years. In order
1
The P-3 program
No.
to qualify for access under the P-3 program, an applicant must be outside of his or
her country of origin, be registered or have legal status in the country of asylum,
have had an Affidavit of Relationship (AOR) filed on his or her behalf by an
eligible family member in the United States during a period in which the
nationality was included on the eligibility list, and have been cleared for onward
processing by the DHS/USCIS Refugee Access Verification Unit (RAVU).
Family members who are eligible to file an AOR are persons who were
admitted to the United States as refugees or were granted asylum, including
persons who are lawful permanent residents of the United States or U.S. citizens
who initially were admitted to the United States as refugees or were granted
asylum. The U.S.-based filer must be at least 18 years of age at the time the AOR
is filed and must file the AOR within 5 years of the date he or she entered the
United States as a refugee or was granted asylum. The USRAP may reject any
AOR for a relationship that does not comport with public policy, such as under-age
or plural marriages.
12
(107 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 70 of 137
The following family members of the U.S.-based family members are
qualified for P-3 access: spouse, unmarried children under 21, and/or parents. A
U.S.-based family member may apply for a same-sex spouse if a legal marriage
was conducted and documented. Cognizant that same-sex marriage is not legal in
the vast majority of refugee-producing and refugee-hosting countries, the United
States will allow a qualifying individual to file for P-3 access for a same-sex
partner if he or she can provide evidence that he/she had a relationship with the
partner for at least one year overseas prior to the submission of the AOR and
considered that person to be his/her spouse or life partner, and that the relationship
is ongoing, together with evidence that legal marriage was not an obtainable option
due to social and/or legal prohibitions.
Under certain circumstances, a U.S.-based individual may file for P-3 access
for an opposite-sex partner if he or she can provide evidence that he/she had a
relationship with the partner for at least one year overseas prior to the submission
of the AOR and considered that person to be his/her spouse or life partner, and that
the relationship is ongoing, together with evidence that legal marriage was not an
obtainable option due to social and/or legal prohibitions.mp
017
Tru
i'i v. ber 12, 2
awa
of H Septema U.S.-based individual
In addition to the qualifyingate
family members of
on
in St ivmember’s spouse and unmarried children
identified above, the qualifying family ed
ted
ci
arch
under 21 may derive refugee2status from the principal applicant for refugee status.
4 6,
-16
o. 17
N
On a case-by-case basis, an individual may be added to a qualifying family
member’s P-3 case if that individual:
1) lived in the same household as the qualifying family member in the
country of nationality or, if stateless, last habitual residence; AND
2) was part of the same economic unit as the qualifying family member in
the country of nationality or, if stateless, last habitual residence; AND
3) demonstrates exceptional and compelling humanitarian circumstances
that justify inclusion on the qualifying family member’s case.
These individuals are not “spouses” or “children”, under INA 207(c)(2)(A)
and thus cannot derive their refugee status from the Principal Applicant. They
must, therefore, independently establish that they qualify as a refugee.
13
(108 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 71 of 137
FY 2017 Priority 3 Nationalities
P-3 processing is available to individuals of the following nationalities:
Afghanistan
Bhutan
Burundi
Central African Republic
Colombia
Cuba
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
El Salvador
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Iran
Iraq
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
Mali
i'i
be
awa
Somalia
of H Septem
ate
South Sudan
in St ived on
cited , arch
Sudan
426
7-16
Syria
1
No.
Uzbekistan
FOLLOWING-TO-JOIN FAMILY REUNIFICATION PETITIONS
Under 8 CFR Section 207.7, a principal refugee admitted to the United
States may request following-to-join benefits for his or her spouse and/or
unmarried children under the age of 21 who were not previously granted refugee
status. Once in the United States, and within two years of admission, the refugee
may file a Form I-730 Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition4 with DHS/USCIS for
each eligible family member. If the Form I-730 petition is approved by
DHS/USCIS’ Service Center Operations Directorate, preliminarily or finally,
(signifying adequate proof of eligibility based on a file review), the State
4
This petition is used to file for the relatives of both refugees and asylees, also known as Visa 93 and Visa 92 cases
respectively. The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program handles only Visa 93 cases, which are counted within the
annual refugee admissions ceiling. Visa 92 cases are not considered to be refugee admissions cases and are not
counted in the number of refugees admitted annually.
14
(109 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 72 of 137
Department’s National Visa Center then forwards the petition to the USCIS office,5
embassy, or consulate nearest to the location of the beneficiary for travel eligibility
determination.
Individuals who gain access to the USRAP through an approved I-730
petition are interviewed by DHS/USCIS or consular officers to verify the
relationships claimed in the petition, as well as to examine any applicable bars to
status and admissibility to the United States. Beneficiaries are not required to
establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution, as they derive
their status from the refugee relative in the United States who filed the petition.
Beneficiaries of I-730 petitions may be processed within their country of origin or
in other locations
Certain relatives in the United States may file an I-730 Refugee/Asylee
Relative Petition and seek Priority 3 access for their qualifying family members (if
eligible) simultaneously. In some cases, the I-730 petition will be the only option
as the family members are still in their country of origin. It is also important to
note that unlike the P-3 process, the I-730 or “follow-to-join” process does not
allow the relative in the United States to petition for parents.
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
DHS/USCIS REFUGEE ADJUDICATIONS
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
Section 207(c) of 164INA grants the Secretary of the Department of
the 26
71
Homeland Security.authority to admit, at his or her discretion, any refugee who is
No
not firmly resettled in a third country, who is determined to be of special
humanitarian concern, and who is admissible to the United States. The authority to
determine eligibility for refugee status has been delegated to USCIS. In 2005,
DHS/USCIS restructured the Refugee Affairs Division and established the Refugee
Corps, a specially trained cadre of officers dedicated to adjudicating applications
for refugee status. The Refugee Corps provides DHS/USCIS with the necessary
resources and flexibility to respond to an increasingly diversified refugee
admissions program. In each quarter of FY 2016, on average, USCIS deployed
approximately 100 Refugee Officers, Supervisory Refugee Officers, and
fingerprinters, plus an additional 70 USCIS officers on temporary assignment, to
20-25 locations around the world to interview refugee applicants. DHS/USCIS
also devotes substantial resources to security vetting, anti-fraud, and training
5
Beginning in 2016, the final adjudication of I-730 petitions transferred to most USCIS international field offices are
made by USICS international staff.
15
(110 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 73 of 137
related to refugee processing, and it has strong partnerships with the law
enforcement, national security, and intelligence communities to maintain and
promote the integrity of the USRAP.
In order to support the increased refugee admissions ceilings in FY 2016 and
FY 2017, the Refugee Affairs Division has been authorized to increase its staffing
from 158 to 292 employees, which includes adjudicators, headquarters staff, and
supervisors/managers.
The Eligibility Determination
In order to be approved for classification as a refugee, an applicant must
meet the refugee definition contained in § 101(a)(42) of the INA. That section
provides that a refugee is a person who is outside his or her country of nationality
or last habitual residence and is unable or unwilling to return to that country
because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular socialrgroup, or political opinion.
ump , 2017
v. T circumstances under which
As mentioned above, the President may specify ispecialber 12
a 'i
m
Haw
f when he pteshe is still within his or her
o
a person can meet the refugee definition
tate d on Se or
in S
e
country of origin. The refugee definition excludes a person who has ordered,
cited , archiv
incited, assisted, or otherwise 6
1642 participated in persecution on account of race,
. 17religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
No
Further, an applicant who has been “firmly resettled” in a third country may not be
admitted as a refugee under INA Section 207. Applicants are also subject to
various statutory grounds of inadmissibility, including criminal, security, and
public health grounds, some of which may be waived or from which applicants
may be exempted.
The grounds of inadmissibility that apply to refugee applicants include the
broad terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds (TRIG) at Section 212(a)(3)(B) of
the INA. Beginning in 2005, the Departments of Homeland Security, State, and
Justice began to exercise a discretionary Secretarial authority to exempt certain
categories of refugee applicants from TRIG inadmissibility based on a
determination that they did not represent a threat to the United States and otherwise
merited an exemption for humanitarian purposes. In FY 2015, DHS/USCIS began
implementing two new exemptions for individuals who provided insignificant or
“certain limited” material support (including through routine commercial or social
16
(111 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 74 of 137
transactions, in the course of providing humanitarian assistance, or under subduress pressure), to undesignated terrorist organizations. As of June 2016, more
than 14,900 TRIG exemptions have been granted to refugee applicants.6
A DHS/USCIS officer conducts a non-adversarial, face-to-face interview of
each refugee applicant designed to elicit information about the applicant’s claim
for refugee status and any grounds of ineligibility. The officer asks questions
about the applicant’s experiences in the country of origin, including problems and
fears about returning (or remaining), as well as questions concerning the
applicant’s activities, background, and criminal history. The officer also considers
evidence about conditions in the country of origin and assesses the applicant’s
credibility and claim.
Background Security Checks
Refugee applicants of all nationalities are required to undergo background
security checks. Security checks include biographic name checks for all refugee
applicants and biometric (fingerprint) checks for refugee applicants within certain
age limits. PRM, through its overseas Resettlement Support Centers, initiates
required biographic name checks, while USCIS is responsible for collecting
ump , 2017
v. Tr information is vetted
biometric data for screening. Biographic and biometric er 12
wai'i
b
f Ha eptemcommunity, and other
against a broad array of law enforcement, intelligence
te o on S
Sta
relevant databases to help ed in rchived to check for any criminal or other
t confirm identity,
ci
6, a
derogatory information (including watchlist information), and to identify
1642
information thatNo. 17inform lines of questioning during the interview. Refugee
could
applicants must clear all required security checks prior to final approval of their
application.
PROCESSING ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Overseas Processing Services
In most processing locations, PRM engages an NGO, an international
organization (IO), or U.S. embassy contractors to manage a Resettlement Support
Center (RSC) that assists in the processing of refugee applicants for admission to
the United States. RSC staff pre-screen applicants to determine preliminarily if
they qualify for one of the applicable processing priorities and to prepare cases for
6
Over 6,700 of these exemptions pertained to Burmese refugee applicants. Approximately 6,930 of the exemptions
related to applicants who provided material support to a terrorist organization under duress – for example, Iraqi
applicants who paid a ransom for a kidnapped family member. Please note that there was a typographical error for
the number of total TRIG exemptions in the FY 2015 Report to Congress; as of June 2015, more than 13,560 TRIG
exemptions had been granted to refugee applicants.
17
(112 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 75 of 137
DHS/USCIS adjudication. The RSCs assist applicants in completing documentary
requirements and schedule DHS/USCIS refugee eligibility interviews. If an
applicant is conditionally approved for resettlement by DHS/USCIS, RSC staff
guide the refugee through post-adjudication steps, including obtaining medical
screening exams and attending cultural orientation programs. The RSC obtains
sponsorship assurances and, once all required steps are completed, including all
necessary security clearances, refers the case to IOM for transportation to the
United States.
In FY 2016, NGOs (Church World Service, HIAS, and International Rescue
Committee) worked under cooperative agreements with PRM as RSCs at locations
in Austria (covering Austria and as of June, Israel), Kenya (covering sub-Saharan
Africa), and Thailand (covering East Asia). International organizations (IOM and
the International Catholic Migration Commission) supported refugee processing
activities based in Ecuador, Jordan, Russia, Nepal, and Turkey which covered
Latin America, the Middle East, South and Central Asia, and Europe. The
Department of State supported refugee processing in Havana, Cuba.
Cultural Orientation
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20 are accepted for
i
The Department of State strives to ensurei'that refugees who
be
awa
admission to the United States aretate of H for thetprofound life changes they will
prepared Sep em
on
nS
experience by providing icultural orientation programs prior to departure for the
ted i archived
c
United States as well as upon 6,
2 arrival. It is critical that refugees have a realistic
-164
7lives will be like, what services will be available to them,
idea of what their o. 1
N new
and what their responsibilities will be.
Every refugee family is offered a copy of Welcome to the United States, a
resettlement guidebook developed with contributions from refugee resettlement
workers, resettled refugees, and government officials. The current edition is
available in twelve languages: Arabic, Burmese, Chin, Dari, English, Farsi, Karen,
Kinyarwanda, Nepali, Somali, Spanish, and Swahili. The previous (2007) edition
is still available in eight other languages: Albanian, Amharic,
Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, French, Kirundi, Russian, Tigrinya, and Vietnamese.
Through this book, refugees have access to accurate information about the initial
resettlement period before they arrive in the United States. The Welcome to the
United States refugee orientation video is available in 12 languages: Arabic,
Burmese, Chin, Dari, English, Farsi, Karen, Kinyarwanda, Nepali, Somali,
Spanish, and Swahili. The 2004 version of the video is available in four other
languages: Karenni, Kirundi, Russian, and Tigrinya. All of these materials are
available to download free of charge at www.COResourceExchange.org.
18
(113 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 76 of 137
In addition, the Department of State funds one- to five-day pre-departure
orientation classes for eligible refugees at sites throughout the world. In an effort
to further bridge the information gap for certain refugee groups, brief video
presentations featuring the experience of recently resettled refugees of the same
ethnic group are made available to refugee applicants overseas. Groups featured
include refugees from Bhutan, Burma, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cuba,
Darfur, and Iraq. Faces of Resettlement shows five individuals who entered the
United States as refugees, from Bhutan, Burma, Burundi, Iraq, and Sudan. Each of
them tells their own story of the ways in which they are rebuilding their lives in
their new communities. Faces of Resettlement also includes interviews with
receiving community members. This video is accompanied by discussion guides
for community members, service providers, and refugees.
The Department of State also offers a curriculum for cultural orientation
after refugees’ arrival in the United States. Based on Reception and Placement
(R&P) Program objectives and indicators, the curriculum was developed to provide
domestic cultural orientation providers with lesson plans, tools, and techniques to
help refugees develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes they will need to adjust
to new life in the U.S. In addition to lesson plans, the publication contains a User's
ump
Guide; a section on staff preparation; and a section . Trtools12, 2017 and
v on r for trainers
ai'i
orientation development, with sub-sectionsaw topicsmbe as instructional
f H on epte such
te o
S different n S
approach, working with groups ofta ed osizes, incorporating English into
in
cited , a chiv
orientation, and conducting needs rassessments. A companion toolkit includes a
426
model assessmento. 17-16 to provide domestic orientation providers with a
intended
N
sample tool for assessing refugee understanding of orientation topics during the
R&P period.
Transportation
The Department of State funds the international transportation of refugees
resettled in the United States through a program administered by IOM. The cost of
transportation is provided to refugees in the form of a loan. Refugees are
responsible for repaying these loans over time, beginning six months after their
arrival, although it is possible to request a deferral based on inability to begin
paying at that time.
Reception and Placement (R&P)
In FY 2016, PRM funded cooperative agreements with nine private
resettlement agencies to provide initial resettlement services to refugees arriving in
the United States. The R&P agencies are responsible for providing initial
reception and core services (including housing, furnishings, clothing and food, as
19
(114 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 77 of 137
well as assistance with access to medical, employment, educational, and social
services) to arriving refugees. These services are provided according to standards
of care within a framework of outcomes and indicators developed jointly by the
NGO community, state refugee coordinators, and U.S. government agencies. The
nine organizations maintain a nationwide network of 309 affiliated offices in 180
locations to provide services. Two of the organizations also maintain a network of
27 affiliated offices through which unaccompanied refugee minors are placed into
foster care, a program administered and funded by HHS/ORR.
Using R&P funds from PRM supplemented by funds and in-kind
contributions from private and other sources, the participating agencies provide the
following services, consistent with the terms of the R&P cooperative agreement:
Sponsorship;
Pre-arrival resettlement planning, including placement;
Reception on arrival;
Basic needs support (including housing, furnishings, food, and clothing)
for at least 30 days;
Cultural orientation;
Assistance with access to health, employment, mp 2017 other
Tru education, and
i'i v. ber 12,
services, as needed; and
awa
of H ofSeptem resettlement service plan
Development and implementation n an initial
ate
in St ived o
for each refugee. d
cite
arch
426,
-16
o. 17
N
OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT (ORR)
Through the Refugee Act, Congress directed HHS/ORR to provide refugees
with resettlement assistance that includes employment training, English language
training, cash assistance (in a manner that promotes early independence), and job
placement – including providing women with equal opportunities to employment
as men. ORR’s mission is to help refugees transition into the United States by
providing benefits and assistance to achieve self-sufficiency and become integrated
members of society as soon as possible. To this end, ORR funds and administers
various programs, some of which are highlighted below.
State-Administered and Wilson-Fish Programs
Under ORR’s state-administered or Wilson-Fish (WF) programs, refugees
not eligible for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are eligible to receive up to eight months of
Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA). Refugees not eligible for Medicaid are eligible to
20
(115 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 78 of 137
receive up to eight months of Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) upon arrival. In
state-administered programs that operate a publicly administered RCA program
(33 states) RCA benefits are based on cash benefit levels established by state
TANF programs. In states that operate their RCA program through a PublicPrivate Program (PPP) model (5 States) and WF states (12 States plus one county),
the RCA benefit is based on the higher of the RCA rates outlined in the ORR
regulations or the state TANF rates.
The WF program is an alternative to the traditional state-administered
program, and is usually administered by local resettlement agencies. The WF
program emphasizes early employment and economic self-sufficiency by
integrating cash assistance, case management, and employment services, and by
incorporating innovative strategies for the provision of cash assistance (e.g.
financial bonuses for early employment). WF programs also serve as a
replacement for the State when the State government declines to participate in the
ORR-funded refugee assistance program.
ORR also provides states/WF programs with Formula Refugee Social
Services (RSS) and Targeted Assistance (TAG) funds. ORR distributes these funds
based on arrival numbers and refugee concentration levels p counties with a high
rum in
017
i v. T and refugees can only
i'limited,er 12, 2
utilization of public assistance. Funding is awa
time
b
H
of yearsSeptem
access RSS and TAG services up ttotfive
after arrival. These services
e
on
nSa
include: employment services, on-the-job training, English language instruction,
ted i archived
ci
vocational training, case16426,
management, translation/interpreter services, social
. 17adjustment services, health-related services, home management, childcare and
No
transportation.
Additionally, to assist specific groups of refugees, ORR administers the
specialized programs through states/WF programs, including Cuban-Haitian, Older
Refugees, Refugee School Impact, and Targeted Assistance.
ORR Matching Grant Program
The ORR Matching Grant program (MG) is provided through the nine
national resettlement agencies that provide R & P services and their resettlement
affiliates in 42 states. The objective of MG is to guide newly-arrived refugee
households toward economic self-sufficiency through employment within four to
six months of program eligibility (which usually begins on the date of arrival in the
United States). In MG, self-sufficiency is defined as total household income from
employment that enables a family unit to support itself without receipt of public
21
(116 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 79 of 137
cash assistance. For each MG participant, ORR awards $2,200 to participating
national resettlement agencies, which then allocate funds to their networks of local
affiliates. Agencies provide a 50% match to every federal dollar.
Through the ORR MG Program, local service providers ensure core
maintenance services for a minimum of 120 days which include housing,
transportation, food, and a cash allowance. Clients also receive intensive case
management and employment services throughout the 180 day service period.
Refugees who are unable to attain self-sufficiency by day 120 or 180 may access
RCA for the remainder of the eight month eligibility period. In FY 2015, nearly
30,000 individuals were newly enrolled in the program, and of those enrolled in the
program for 180 days, 82% achieved self-sufficiency. Approximately 30% of
refugees who arrive in a fiscal year participate in the ORR MG Program.
ORR Refugee Health
ORR addresses the health and emotional well-being of refugees by
providing technical assistance on Refugee Medical Assistance and domestic
refugee medical screening, supporting mental health awareness, managing the
Services for Survivors of Torture and Refugee Health rump
grant
T Promotion017 programs,
i'i v. ber 12, 2
and other health initiatives.
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on Program
ORR Unaccompanied Refugee Minor (URM)
cited , arch
426
7-16 to 15 states which administer over 20 Unaccompanied
ORR provides1
No. funds
Refugee Minor (URM) programs. States contract with local licensed foster care
agencies that provide specialized placements and services to URMs. URMs live in
various placements including: traditional and therapeutic foster homes, group
homes, semi-independent and independent living and residential treatment centers,
and homes of relatives. URMs receive various services including: English
language training, educational and vocational training, cultural preservation, social
integration, family tracing, permanency planning, independent living, medical care,
and mental health care. ORR regulations require states to provide services to
URM in parity with the state’s Title IV-B foster care plan.
Other ORR Discretionary Refugee Service Programs
ORR also provides funding to non-profit agencies to carry out special
initiatives or programs for refugees including: case management, ethnic
community development, home-based child care business development, individual
development accounts, microenterprise development, and agricultural projects.
22
(117 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 80 of 137
The Preferred Communities Program is implemented through the nine
resettlement agencies and focuses on building capacity to receive an increasingly
vulnerable refugee population. The program supports long-term case management
services to the more at risk populations including, but not limited to, women heads
of household and refugees with significant medical and mental health needs.
Additionally, the program has allowed resettlement agencies the flexibility to
address unanticipated arrivals such as refugees arriving in underserved areas,
increased Cuban/Haitian arrivals and secondary migrants.
ORR Technical Assistance
ORR provides technical assistance (TA) to resettlement stakeholders
through various organizations that have relevant expertise. Currently ORR’s TA
providers assist stakeholders in the areas of community engagement/integration,
employment, mental health, youth initiatives, services to survivors of torture, and
monitoring.
No.
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
1
23
(118 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 81 of 137
REGIONAL PROGRAMS
TABLE II
PROPOSED FY 2017 REGIONAL CEILINGS BY PRIORITY
AFRICA
Priority 1 Individual Referrals
Priority 2 Groups
Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees
Total Proposed:
20,000
14,500
500
35,000
EAST ASIA
Priority 1 Individual Referrals
Priority 2 Groups
Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees
Total Proposed:
1,800
10,000
200
12,000
EUROPE / CENTRAL ASIA
Priority 1 Individual Referrals
ump
Priority 2 Groups
v. Tr r 12,
wai'i embe
Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees
f Ha
o
ept
State ed on S
Total Proposed:
in
cited , archiv
LATIN AMERICA / CARIBBEAN
426
7-16
1
No. Priority 1 Individual Referrals
Priority 2 Groups
Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees
Total Proposed:
990
17
03,000
2
10
4,000
950
4,000
50
5,000
NEAR EAST / SOUTH ASIA
Priority 1 Individual Referrals
Priority 2 Groups
Priority 3 Family Reunification Refugees
Total Proposed:
UNALLOCATED RESERVE
19,000
20,900
100
40,000
14,000
TOTAL PROPOSED CEILING:
24
110,000
(119 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 82 of 137
AFRICA
There are currently nearly 5 million refugees across the African continent,
constituting roughly 25 percent of the global refugee population. Refugee numbers
in Africa increased by nearly half a million in 2015 due to new or intensified
conflicts across the continent. There has been some progress finding opportunities
for local integration in host countries in Africa but limited refugee repatriation.
Third country resettlement has increased from the continent but falls short of
needs.
New and ongoing conflicts in three countries – Burundi, Nigeria, and South
Sudan – are responsible for the growth in refugee numbers in 2015 and 2016. In
Burundi, early 2015 election-related violence and the aftermath forced over
250,000 refugees to flee to neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC),
Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda; this outflow is expected to continue throughout
2016. Instability and violence in Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, and Niger have
displaced more than 2.4 million people in the region, including 2.2 million
Nigerian internally displaced persons (IDPs) and some 170,000 Nigerian refugees
to neighboring countries. Cameroon, Niger and Chad continue to struggle with
rising numbers of IDPs. In South Sudan, ethnic-fueledump
political conflict that
017
v. Tr South Sudanese are
i'i million r 12, 2
erupted in December 2013 continues. Nearly 1.7
be
awa
of H Septem reached nearly 840,000.
internally displaced and total refugee numbers have now
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
Ongoing conflict in6the 6
1 42 DRC and Sudan has also continued to generate new
. 17- past few years. Conflict in eastern DRC since mid-2012
refugee outflows over the
No
has led steady flows of Congolese to seek asylum in Uganda, Rwanda, and
Burundi, bringing the total number of Congolese refugees to nearly 534,000.
Conflict in Sudan’s Darfur region continued to displace people internally. The
ongoing conflict with rebel groups in Sudan’s Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile
states has forced some 300,000 Sudanese refugees to flee to South Sudan, Ethiopia,
and Kenya since June 2011. The steady outflow of Eritreans also continues, not
only to refugee camps in Ethiopia and eastern Sudan, but also further north as
Eritreans attempt to migrate to Europe and beyond. Some 450,000 Eritreans have
fled political repression, forced conscription, and economic collapse over the past
decade.
Africa’s refugee numbers have also been augmented by conflicts beyond the
continent, primarily in the neighboring Near East region. North Africa has long
hosted large numbers of Palestinian refugees. The ongoing crisis in Syria has
added more than 140,000 new refugees to the region including 120,000 in Egypt
and 18,000 in Libya. The crisis in Yemen has led some 15,000 Yemenis and
Somalis living in Yemen to flee to Djibouti and Somalia in 2015 to date, with
25
(120 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 83 of 137
higher numbers expected. No progress was made over the past year in seeking a
resolution to the Western Saharan conflict that would enable an estimated 90,000
Sahrawi refugees in Algeria to return home.
Most African countries honor the principle of first asylum and most have
allowed refugees to remain – and in many cases to effectively integrate
economically and/or socially – until voluntary repatriation is possible. Some
countries, such as Cameroon, Egypt, and Sudan, have forcibly returned refugees
over the past year. For countries growing weary of hosting large refugee
caseloads, we continue to advocate for first asylum and inclusion for refugees.
And, for those countries that lack formal mechanisms for asylum, we continue to
advocate for the establishment of such systems in consultation with UNHCR.
Religious Freedom
In Sub-Saharan Africa, people are generally free to practice their chosen
religions. Governments regularly provide for and respect freedom of religion,
although in some countries, such as Eritrea and Sudan, religious freedom is
limited, particularly in the midst of ethnic and other conflicts.
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i
i'responsible for severe religious
The Government of the State of Eritrea is tembe
awa
of H Sep
freedom abuses. In recent yearsState d on engaged in serious religious
n the country has
e
ted i arandvdetaining members of independent
repression by harassing, iarresting, chi
c
426,
evangelical groups, including Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witnesses (who lost
7-16
.1
certain rights of No
citizenship for not participating in the 1993 national referendum).
Detainees are held in harsh conditions and some have died in custody. The
government has also sought greater control over the four state-approved religious
groups: the Eritrean Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the
Evangelical (Lutheran) Church, and the Sunni Islamic community. The
government reportedly holds individuals who are jailed for their religious
affiliation at various locations. Often detainees are not formally charged, accorded
due process, or allowed access to their families. While many are ostensibly jailed
for evasion of military conscription, significant numbers were being held solely for
their religious beliefs; the U.S. Committee for International Religious Freedom
(USCIRF) estimates that between 1,200 and 3,000 individuals are being detained
on religious grounds. At least three Jehovah's Witnesses had been detained since
September 24, 1994 (almost 22 years), reportedly for evading compulsory military
service, a term far beyond the maximum legal penalty of two years for refusing to
perform national service.
26
(121 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 84 of 137
In Sudan, the government continues to deny permits for the construction of
new churches, detain church members, close or demolish pre-existing churches,
restrict non-Muslim religious groups and missionaries from operating in or
entering the country, censor religious materials and leaders, and arrest or intimidate
suspected proselytizers. The government places restrictions on non-Muslims in a
manner that is inconsistent with domestic and international obligations to uphold
freedom of religion. Although there is no penalty for converting from another
religion to Islam, converting from Islam is punishable by death. Authorities
express their strong prejudice against conversion by occasionally subjecting
converts to intense scrutiny, ostracism, and intimidation, or by encouraging
converts to leave the country.
Both Eritrea and Sudan are currently designated as “Countries of Particular
Concern” (CPC) for particularly severe violations of religious freedom by the
Department of State under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. The
USRAP continues to be available through Priority 1 referrals to Sudanese, Eritrean,
and other refugees who are victims of religious intolerance. Refugees from Eritrea
and Sudan with certain refugee or asylee family members in the United States have
access to the USRAP through Priority 3.
ump 2017
v. Tr r 12,for freedom of
In Somalia the provisional federal constitution provides
wai'i mbe
f Ha eptethe state religion. The law
religion within limits, although it tate o
enshrines Islam as
nS
nS
ireligion iotherothan Islam. Since its inception in July
ed
prohibits proselytism forited
c any , arch v
2012, the Federal Government of Somalia has made incremental progress to
6426
7-1expanding its authority, but its capacity to enforce the
establish institutions 1
No. and
provisional constitution remains extremely limited, particularly outside of
Mogadishu. There have been reports that non-Muslim individuals experience
discrimination, violence, and detention because of their religious beliefs. Refugees
from Somalia with certain refugee or asylee family members in the United States
also have access to the USRAP through Priority 3.
Voluntary Repatriation
Voluntary repatriation to improved conditions in the home country is the
most common and desirable durable solution, however there have been few
refugee returns on the continent in recent years. Recent outflows have far
surpassed repatriation reversing a trend of falling refugee numbers since the mid1990s. Large-scale organized repatriations to Angola, Liberia, Rwanda, and
Burundi are largely complete, but residual populations remain. In the case of
Burundi, many who returned in the early 2000s have fled again. UNHCR
recommended cessation of prima facie refugee status for refugees from Angola and
Liberia effective June 30, 2012, and for pre-1999 caseload Rwandan refugees
27
(122 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 85 of 137
effective June 30, 2013. Efforts continue to repatriate those who still wish to
return and to locally integrate residual populations where asylum countries agree to
provide permanent residence or citizenship. The local integration of former
Angolan refugees in Zambia progressed though resources are a constraint.
Smaller-scale repatriation efforts continue throughout the continent. In West
Africa, out of an estimated 300,000 individuals who fled the 2010-2011 electionrelated violence in Côte d’Ivoire, over 240,000 have now returned home.
Repatriation was delayed in 2014 and 2015 due to the Ebola crisis and related
border closures but started up again in December 2015. UNHCR anticipates
assisting with the return of 25,000 Ivoirian refugees from Liberia in 2016. In Mali,
while UNHCR is not yet promoting refugee return to northern Mali, more than
40,000 refugees have returned spontaneously in to safe regions under government
control but periodic outbreaks of violence in 2015 in northern Mali have deterred
would-be returnees and caused new refugee outflows to Niger during the year.
In East Africa, the repatriation to South Sudan that started in 2005 was
largely concluded in 2011 with the return of more than 370,000 refugees.
However, due to widespread conflict since 2013, all repatriation has stopped and
the focus has instead shifted to emergency response torthe p refugees. UNHCR,
umnew 017
i . T er signed
i'ofvSomalia12, 2 a tripartite
the Government of Kenya, and the Government
b
awa
of H Septem the voluntary repatriation
agreement in 2013 that establishedaae
t legal framework for
on
n St
of Somali refugees from iKenya, andhived
ted i arc UNHCR has supported the voluntary return of
c
6
approximately 13,300 Somalis , date to nine identified “safe” areas within
1642 to
7-Somalia, however, are not conducive to safe and
Somalia. Most parts1
No. of
sustainable refugee return. Despite the efforts of some asylum countries, including
Israel, to repatriate Eritrean refugees, UNHCR has strongly discouraged returns to
Eritrea given ongoing political repression and harsh treatment of returnees.
In Central Africa, while there were over 500,000 refugee returns to Burundi
from 2002 to 2014, election-related violence that erupted in Burundi in April 2015,
has generated over 250,000 refugees to date, many of them former refugees.
Although the majority of Rwandan refugees returned home in the late 1990’s,
some 100,000 are thought to remain in exile. With the cessation of prima facie
refugee status for pre-1999 Rwandan refugees on June 30, 2013, most remaining
Rwandans will be required either to repatriate or to seek non-refugee means of
remaining in asylum countries. UNHCR had made significant progress in
repatriating Congolese to eastern DRC earlier in the past decade. However,
renewed hostilities between the Congolese government and other armed groups
across eastern DRC erased most of these gains. Eastern DRC is too insecure for
large-scale refugee return at this point. UNHCR did conclude its repatriation
program for some 130,000 Congolese refugees to western DRC’s Equateur
28
(123 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 86 of 137
Province from 2012 through 2014. The relatively peaceful elections in the Central
African Republic have raised hopes of refugee repatriation but while we anticipate
some spontaneous returns to assess the situation, most refugees are still wary.
Local Integration
While most African countries adhere to encampment policies for refugees,
many have allowed, or even encouraged, refugees to pursue economic activities, a
sort of de facto integration, by providing land for refugee farmers or permitting
refugees to open small businesses. Despite such de facto integration, refugees
residing among the local population do not necessarily enjoy the same rights,
entitlements to social services, or economic opportunities available to citizens or
permanent residents. As a result, this piecemeal integration is often an interim,
rather than a durable, solution for many African refugees. However, strengthened
partnerships with development actors, including the World Bank, shows promise in
facilitating more sustainable socio-economic integration of refugees.
In recent years, a number of African countries have offered more formal
integration as a durable solution for residual refugee populations who will not or
p
cannot repatriate. Among member countries of the Economic Community of West
Trum 2, 17
v. documents 20 home
African States (ECOWAS), the issuance ofawai'i
identity ber 1 by
m
f H of immigration status allows refugees
o
governments and subsequent regularization n Septe
tate d o
nS
to access legal residencyited ithe rightive work in host countries; Ivoirians will be
c and , arch to
the latest refugee population26 benefit under these ECOWAS protocols as
-164 to
. 17integration for those who wish to remain in their countries
UNHCR pursues local
No
of asylum in the coming years. Senegal offered Mauritanian refugees who wished
to remain in Senegal the option of becoming Senegalese citizens in 2007, and
UNHCR, in partnership with the Senegalese government, launched a campaign in
2012 to provide digitized and biometric identity cards to some 19,000 refugees (of
whom 14,000 were Mauritanians). The card guarantees holders the same rights as
Senegalese citizens, including the right to residence in the country and to travel to
ECOWAS member states. In 2015, Mali provided birth certificates to some 8,000
Mauritanian refugee children, facilitating access to state services such as education
and paving the way for them to eventually apply for Malian citizenship.
In Southern Africa, the Government of Zambia has offered local integration
to some 15,000 former Angolan refugees and up to 4,000 Rwandans. The 2012
initiative offers permanent residence status to the former Angolan refugees -mainly refugees who arrived before 1986, were born in Zambia, or are married to
Zambians. The Government of Zambia has approved 6,000 applicants who meet
eligibility criteria.
29
(124 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 87 of 137
In East Africa, the Government of Tanzania has finalized citizenship for
nearly 200,000 1972-era Burundi former refugees. While not offering a formal
integration program, Uganda has permitted refugees to live and work outside of
camps – most are in rural settlements where they have access to land or in urban
areas. Ethiopia formally introduced an out-of-camp policy for Eritrean refugees in
August 2010, allowing Eritreans to live outside camps if they are able to support
themselves or if they have someone to sponsor them financially. Approximately
3,500 Eritreans are part of this program now. While it does not give Eritrean
refugees the right to work, it does offer the ability to pursue additional educational
opportunities, including tertiary education. In 2013, Sudan agreed to issue work
permits to some 30,000 Eritrean refugees who wish to work outside of refugee
camps in eastern Sudan, although only a handful have been issued permits to date.
Third-Country Resettlement
Given the political and economic volatility in many parts of Africa,
resettlement to third countries outside the region is an essential durable solution
and element of protection for certain refugees. With limited opportunities for
permanent integration in many countries of asylum and the protracted nature of
some refugee situations, the need for third-country resettlement of17
rump , 20 African refugees
v. Tincreasingly viewed
is expected to continue. In recent years, UNHCR has ber 12
wai'i em
f Ha forprefugees in Africa, and has
o
resettlement as an important tool of tprotectionSe t
Sta e ed on
in
increased resettlement referrals this past year.
cited , archiv
426
7-16
1
FY 2016 U.S. Admissions
No.
We project 27,500 African refugee arrivals in FY 2016. Two countries of
origin – Somalia and DRC – still account for the vast majority of U.S. refugee
admissions from Africa, followed by Eritrea, Sudan and Ethiopia. UNHCR’s
enhanced Congolese Resettlement Strategy effort has reached its stated goal to
refer 50,000 DRC refugees for resettlement from Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania and
Burundi to resettlement countries over five years. In FY 2016, the number of
Congolese resettled to the United States (more than 14,000) will for the first time
surpass the number of Somalis. UNHCR will continue to refer Congolese refugees
from the four countries, as the resettlement need for Congolese from the eastern
Congo still exists.
We expect to admit nearly 7,000 refugees from our two largest processing
locations in Africa: Kenya and Ethiopia, plus another 600 from other locations in
East Africa. Close to 5,500 refugees will depart for the United States from Kenya
this year, mostly Somalis in the Kakuma and Dadaab camps. PRM continues to
fund movements of refugee applicants from Dadaab to Kakuma for the purposes of
30
(125 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 88 of 137
DHS/USCIS interview and adjudication, since DHS/USCIS staff cannot work at
Dadaab due to the security conditions. Applicants return to Dadaab for medical
exams and other post-DHS/USCIS steps until their departure for the United States.
Admissions from Ethiopia also continue to be strong, with approximately 3,500
U.S. arrivals projected this year. Populations include primarily Somalis from
camps in the east and Eritreans from the northern camps, including approximately
60 Eritrean unaccompanied refugee minors. We also will resettle smaller numbers
of Sudanese from camps in the west.
The United States continues to interview refugees from the Central African
Republic in southern Chad and Sudanese Darfuri refugees in eastern Chad. We
expect to admit nearly 600 refugees from Chad in FY 2016, part of an effort to
build a large resettlement operation for Darfuri refugees in eastern Chad. An
additional 450 refugees from various locations in West Africa are also expected to
be admitted in FY 2016.
From Southern Africa, we expect to admit 2,500 refugees – primarily
Somalis from South Africa and Congolese from Malawi, Namibia, Zambia, and
Zimbabwe.
p
Trum 2, 2017
v. approximately 3,000 Sudanese,
Outside of sub-Saharan Africa, we anticipate ber 1
wai'i
f Ha eptem
Somali, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and other o
sub-Saharan African refugees who will be
S
State
inMalta,ived on of the UNHCR Emergency
arriving primarily fromcited
Egypt, rch or via one
6, a
Transit Centers in Romania and Slovakia. In all, we expect to admit refugees of
1642
nearly 30 African o. 17
N nationalities, processed in dozens of countries, during FY 2016.
FY 2017 U.S. Resettlement Program
We propose 35,000 resettlement numbers for African refugees in FY 2017
that will largely parallel the populations admitted in FY 2016. As a result of
discussions within the Department of State, UNHCR, the NGO community, and
DHS/USCIS to identify caseloads, PRM has identified a number of nationalities
and groups for processing during FY 2017.
In the Great Lakes region, processing of Congolese in Rwanda, Uganda, and
Tanzania (and Burundi if the situation allows) is expected to result in a total of
15,000 departures. Approximately 10,000 of these admissions will be the result of
a P-2 group designation for Congolese refugees in Tanzania and from the camps in
Rwanda. Departures from Uganda will result in 5,000 arrivals. It is yet to be
determined whether the violence in Burundi that has prevented processing of
Congolese there will result in lower arrival numbers from Burundi in FY 2016.
31
(126 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 89 of 137
From East Africa, we expect to resettle just over 9,000 refugees each from
Kenya and Ethiopia, primarily Somalis and Eritreans. We also expect UNHCR to
continue referring Eritrean unaccompanied refugee minors at a rate of about 100
per year from refugee camps in northern Ethiopia.
From southern Africa, we expect to admit 3,000 refugees consisting
primarily of Somalis from South Africa and Congolese from Mozambique,
Malawi, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
In eastern Chad, UNHCR is establishing infrastructure for a robust
resettlement program for Sudanese Darfuris with funding from PRM. This will be
in addition to the continued processing of Central African Republic refugees from
southern Chad. Total admission numbers from West Africa and Chad are expected
to be approximately 1,000.
Outside of sub-Saharan Africa, we anticipate 2,000 Sudanese, Somali,
Ethiopian, Eritrean and other sub-Saharan African refugees will be admitted from
Egypt and Malta, and through the Emergency Transit Centers in Slovakia and
Romania.
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
Proposed FY 2017 Africa program to of Hawa tembe the following
include arrivals from
ep
te
categories:
Sta ed on S
in
cited , archiv
426
7-16
1
No.
Priority 1 Individual Referrals
20,000
Priority 2 Groups
14,500
Priority 3 Family Reunification
500
Total Proposed Ceiling
35,000
EAST ASIA
Several countries in East Asia host large and diverse refugee and asylum
seeker populations. Recent years have seen important developments for these
groups. Thailand, Bangladesh, and Malaysia continue to host large numbers of
Burmese refugees and asylum-seekers, and thousands more are in the capital cities
of Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, and New Delhi, including Burmese, Pakistanis, Sri
Lankans, West Africans, Syrians, Palestinians, and others. The number of persons
of concern to UNHCR across the archipelago of Indonesia has also increased to
nearly 13,800, including some 6,400 refugees, in recent years.
32
(127 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 90 of 137
The U.S. government continues to press for meaningful political and
democratic reforms in Burma, as well as a national ceasefire agreement with ethnic
minority groups. The international community is engaged in discussions regarding
the voluntary return of Burmese refugees, but acknowledges that ongoing conflict
with armed ethnic groups, particularly in Kachin and Shan States, peace and
national reconciliation efforts, and limited access to humanitarian and development
assistance make large-scale return of refugees in safety and with dignity a slow,
gradual process.
The resettlement of more than 100,000 Burmese refugees from Thailand
since 2006 – including more than 85,000 to the United States – has significantly
reduced the number of Burmese refugees in the camps who are eligible for the U.S.
P-2 resettlement program. After more than seven years of large-scale resettlement,
we have arrived at the natural conclusion of the group resettlement program with
specific eligibility criteria for Burmese refugees who were re-registered by
UNHCR in 2005 and formally registered by the Royal Thai Government (RTG).
P-2 processing should conclude within one year. Those who do not exercise this
option will be able to remain in the camps until safe and voluntary returns are
possible. The United States will continue to accept individual referrals from
UNHCR for all nationalities, including registered Burmese.
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
awa embe
of H Septthe second largest refugee status
Since 2006, UNHCR Malaysia has operated
te
n Sta ived on
iworld and Malaysia is currently one of the largest
determination program cited
in the
arch
resettlement countries in1the 26, program with some 8,200 projected refugee
4 U.S.
- 6
o 17
departures in FY16.and more than 69,500 since 2006. As of the end of March
N
2016, there were 158,794 persons of concern registered with UNHCR in Malaysia
of which 144,197, or 90.8 percent, are from Burma. In addition, some 14,600
asylum-seekers and refugees from various countries – primarily Pakistan, Iraq,
Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Sri Lanka – are registered with UNHCR. Malaysia is
not a party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967
Protocol, but generally tolerates the presence of refugees.
The systematic persecution and discrimination of members of the Rohingya
minority from Rakhine State, Burma have resulted in large numbers fleeing
Rakhine State to seek safety in Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, and other
countries in the region for over five decades. The mid-2015 migrant crisis in the
Indian Ocean began to unfold on May 1 when Thai authorities discovered mass
graves of migrants in the south and began cracking down on migrant smuggling
operations. The Administration continues to actively support the ongoing regional
response that stresses the need to address the root causes of the crisis in source
countries, including by promoting and protecting the human rights of members of
vulnerable populations in source countries.
33
(128 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 91 of 137
The last large influx of approximately 250,000 Rohingya from Rakhine State
to the Cox’s Bazar district in southeastern Bangladesh began in July 1991.
Between 1992 and 2005, over 236,000 UNHCR-registered Rohingya refugees
were voluntarily repatriated from Cox’s Bazar to Rakhine State, most of them
immediately after their arrival to Bangladesh. No repatriation operation has taken
place since. UNHCR supports over 32,600 refugees in two official refugee camps
(Kutupalong and Nayapara) in Cox’s Bazar. In addition, the Government of
Bangladesh (GOB) estimates that 300,000 – 500,000 undocumented Rohingya
currently reside in various villages and towns outside the refugee camps and in
makeshift settlement sites.
In February 2014, the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) announced its
national strategy on “Myanmar Refugees and Undocumented Myanmar Nationals
in Bangladesh”. The GOB completed the main census of the undocumented
Rohingya during the first half of June and plans to publish the census results in
December. The issuance of information cards will follow which we understand
will ensure protection and access to basic services, including freedom of
movement, access to livelihood, and education opportunities to the Rohingya who
took part in the census. The U.S. government is encouraged by GOB commitments
made in the national strategy, including the resumptionumthird country
of p
017
v. Tractivity immediately upon
12, 2
i'i
resettlement. We are prepared to resume resettlement ber
awa tem
of H SInpaddition, we expect ongoing
notification by the GOB that we may proceed. e
ate
in St in ed on
UNHCR referrals of urban d
cite Burmesehiv India.
arc
426,
-16
o. 17
N
As reflected in the North Korean Human Rights Act, the United States
remains deeply concerned about the human rights situation of North Koreans both
inside the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and in various
countries in the region. The United States began resettling interested, eligible
North Korean refugees and their family members in 2006 and remains committed
to continuing this program.
Religious Freedom
Although many governments in East Asia do not restrict religious freedom,
religious believers face serious persecution in several countries. The DPRK,
China, and Burma are designated by the Department of State as Countries of
Particular Concern (CPCs) under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
for systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom.
The DPRK severely restricts religious freedom, including organized
religious activity, except for that which is supervised tightly by officially
recognized groups linked to the government. Although the DPRK constitution
34
(129 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 92 of 137
provides for “freedom of religious belief,” genuine religious freedom does not
exist. Information about the day-to-day life of religious persons in the country is
limited. Religious and human rights groups outside of the country have provided
numerous reports that members of underground churches have been beaten,
arrested, tortured, or killed because of their religious beliefs.
While the constitutions of China, Burma, and Vietnam provide for freedom
of religion, in practice, these governments restrict or repress religious activities of
some members of religious communities in a manner that is inconsistent with their
commitments to uphold freedom of religion.
The Chinese government continues to harass and interfere with unregistered
religious groups, most notably the unofficial Catholic churches loyal to the Holy
See, Protestant “house churches,” some Muslim groups (especially ethnic Uighur
Muslims in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region), members of the Falun
Gong, and Tibetan Buddhists reverent to the Dalai Lama. China additionally
reprimanded members of government-sanctioned churches for advocacy on behalf
of their church communities. Certain religious or spiritual groups are banned by
law. The criminal law defines some banned groups as “evil cults” and those
p
belonging to them can be sentenced to prison or administrative detention. This
17
Trum
v.groups, 12, 20
i'i
includes Falun Gong and some other qigong-based
wa
ber in addition to some
f Ha eabolished the Reeducation
oofficially ptem
Christian groups. Although legislation
S
ate
n December 2013,
iin St ived on religious believers have been
through Labor (RTL) system
cited , arch
harassed, arrested, detained4in6
16 2 “black jails” without due process and sentenced to
. 17- been credible allegations of torture.
long jail terms. No have
There
In Burma, the government implemented considerable political and economic
reforms, resulting in improved respect for many human rights. However, the
government continues to discriminate against members of religious minority
groups. Members of some ethnic groups, including those not formally recognized
as citizens – such as the Muslim Rohingya in northern Rakhine State – are not
protected under anti-discrimination laws. In 2012, intercommunal conflict led to
the death of nearly 200 Rohingya and the displacement of 140,000 people.
Throughout 2013-2015 isolated incidents of violence against Rohingya individuals
continued to take place.
Government authorities, through various policies and practices, subjected
Rohingya Muslims to physical abuse, arbitrary arrest and detention, restrictions on
religious practice and travel, and discrimination in employment, social services,
and access to citizenship. Religious minority populations, including Muslims,
Christians, and other religious minorities, experienced arrest and detention,
restrictions on religious practice, and various forms of discrimination. At the same
35
(130 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 93 of 137
time, the government continued to support interfaith dialogue and provided some
members of the international community and international organizations greater
access to ethnic minority areas.
Vietnam and the United States signed an agreement on religious freedom in
May 2005, under which Vietnam committed to improving the protection of
religious freedom in Vietnam. As a result of the progress Vietnam made after
signing the agreement, the U.S. Government removed Vietnam from the CPC list
in November 2006. While there have been some improvements, Vietnam’s
religious freedom record has been mixed. Progress has been made with regard to
the registration/recognition of religious groups and congregations and many
religious groups have experienced expanded freedom of assembly. However,
religious organizations must undergo an onerous registration process for almost all
normal religious activities. There are also reports of harassment at the local level,
including through the use of land laws. Several Protestant congregations in rural
areas continue to report harassment, including beatings and forced renunciations.
Nationals of the DPRK, Vietnam, China, Laos, and Burma have access to
the USRAP. North Korean refugees also have access to family reunification
processing through Priority 3.
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
Voluntary Repatriation
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
Although the Burmese government has taken steps to implement democratic
426
7-16 fighting continues in Kachin and northern Shan
1
and political reforms, ongoing
No.
States, and tensions remain in Rakhine State since the June and October 2012
violence. The new government continues to work towards a national reconciliation
and peace process but it is too early to tell. We are hopeful that substantial
progress towards this goal will be made in the near future. UNHCR continues with
its planning for facilitated returns and continues its discussions with the RTG,
Burmese government, NGOs working on the Thailand-Burma border, and the
Karen and Karenni refugee communities; however, conditions are not yet
conducive for large-scale returns and refugees often cite the lack of infrastructure,
land and security issues in southeast Burma. The United States and other donor
governments continue to engage regularly with the Thai government concerning
the future of the nine refugee camps on the Thai-Burma border.
Local Integration
Due to fears of a “pull factor,” countries in the region have traditionally been
reluctant to integrate refugees or to grant asylum. Local integration remains a
difficult option, due to opposition from host countries, such as Thailand,
Bangladesh, Malaysia, and India. UNHCR and the international community
36
(131 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 94 of 137
continue to advocate for these governments to make policy changes relating to
refugees, and to expand humanitarian protection and assistance space for refugees,
asylum seekers, and other persons of concern.
Third-Country Resettlement
The United States continues to lead third country resettlement efforts in the
region. Other countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the
Nordic countries, resettle refugees referred by UNHCR. In FY 2016, the United
States processed UNHCR-referred refugee cases in China, the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia and Thailand.
FY 2016 U.S. Admissions
We expect to admit close to 14,000 refugees from East Asia in FY 2016.
This will include nearly 4,600 members of Burmese ethnic minorities (mostly
Karen, Karenni, and Kachin) living in camps along the Thai-Burma border, over
7,900 Burmese (of various ethnic minorities) in Malaysia, and a smaller number of
urban refugees of various nationalities in the region.
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
FY 2017 U.S. Resettlement Program
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
tate d on
We expect to admiteupin S
to 12,000erefugees from East Asia in FY 2017. This
cit d , a chiv
will include up to 3,500 membersrof Burmese ethnic minorities (mostly Karen and
426
7-16along the Thai-Burma border, some 5,500 Burmese (of
Karenni) living in . 1
No camps
various ethnic minorities) in Malaysia, and a number of urban refugees of various
nationalities in the region.
Proposed FY 2017 East Asia program to include arrivals from the following
categories:
Priority 1 Individual Referrals
1,800
Priority 2 Groups
10,000
Priority 3 Family Reunification
200
Total Proposed Ceiling
12,000
37
(132 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 95 of 137
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA
In 2015, Europe experienced a dramatic increase in asylum seekers. Europe
continued to host large refugee populations and other persons affected by conflict,
including those who, over the last two decades, have been left in situations of
protracted displacement – some in dire conditions. In its 2016-2017 Global
Appeal, UNHCR reported that its priorities are to provide emergency assistance to
refugee arrivals and mixed movements, safeguard asylum space and provide
acceptable reception conditions, build and maintain fair asylum systems
throughout Europe, and provide durable solutions to displaced populations in the
Balkans, the Caucasus, and in Ukraine.
The large increase in the number of people risking their lives at sea in search
of safety in Europe made it the largest mass migration since the Second World
War. By the end of 2015, there were over a million arrivals in Italy and Greece.
Over 850,000 arrived in Greece alone. The European Union after initially
struggling to arrive at a coordinated policy to address the situation has agreed upon
a Joint Action Plan with Turkey to reduce these flows. Under the plan, the EU has
promised to provide over 6 billion euros to Turkey in humanitarian assistance and
development aid to help support programs for refugees umTurkey. 1The plan also
r in p , 20 7
v. Tfor international protection in
allows for Greece to return to Turkey thoseawai'i
ineligible er 12
f H be eptemb
o
Greece. The EU requires that the tagreementn S implemented in full compliance
S ate ed o
with international and EUed in rchiv
cit law. , a
426
7-16 the challenge for Europe remains two-fold. Providing
In light ofNo. 1
this crisis,
humanitarian assistance to migrants and refugees arriving on their shores after
undertaking dangerous maritime journeys and integrating the more than one
million who arrived last year. UNHCR and IOM published a Regional Refugee
and Migrant Response Plan for Europe to provide humanitarian assistance in
affected countries including Turkey and Greece. The United States has contributed
almost $44 million to international organizations in humanitarian assistance to
provide life sustaining assistance, protection to vulnerable populations and
registration assistance to affected countries. The long-term integration challenges
are most acute in Germany, Sweden, Austria and Finland, which received the bulk
of the asylum seekers last year. We anticipate that many other countries will face
challenges (albeit at a smaller scale) as they work to follow through with
commitments to relocate individuals from Greece and Italy and/or participate in
voluntary resettlement programs.
Despite the fact that a majority of countries in the region are party to the
1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol,
countries’ compliance with these instruments remains problematic. UNHCR and
38
(133 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 96 of 137
other stakeholders continue to build host country protection capacity and are
helping to strengthen asylum systems and protection laws in the region; however,
many of these countries have been slow or reluctant to recognize and integrate
refugees and other at-risk individuals. The protection provided by some
governments in the region to refugees, asylum seekers, and other migrants is
limited and public intolerance, including attacks against members of minority
populations, is common. There are documented cases of refoulement. UNHCR
has been working with many of these governments to establish and/or reform
asylum procedures and refugee protection laws.
The 1990’s break-up of the Soviet Union created newly independent states
with sizeable populations of stateless individuals due to gaps in nationality laws
and inconsistent implementation of those laws. Difficulty in establishing
citizenship at the time of succession has created subsequent problems for children
born to an undocumented parent(s). The problem of statelessness remains in the
region, although some states, such as Turkmenistan, have taken steps to register
stateless individuals and facilitate their acquisition of nationality.
According to UNHCR, as of April 2016, there were over 360,000 refugees
and IDPs in the Balkans, almost all of whom have been displaced for a decade or
ump
17
longer. Over 200,000 persons of this population'iare Tr r 12, from Kosovo, most
v. displaced 20
i
a
e
of whom currently live in Serbia. UNHCRaw eptemb more than 90,000
of H estimates that
S
ate
individuals in this group are in need of ed on
in St ivassistance. Since 2000, the overall level of
h
cited has been
return to Kosovo from Serbia 6, arc low. While there have been over 26,000
42
-16
voluntary returns of minorities to Kosovo since the conflict ended, housing,
o. 17
N
documentation issues, a lack of employment opportunity, and occasional violence
directed against ethnic Serbs in Kosovo has limited continuing return prospects.
Despite the situation in Kosovo, since 2010, the countries of the region –
with the assistance of the international community – made significant progress
toward resolving a large part of the refugee situation in the Balkans. A November
2011 ministerial meeting in Belgrade brought together Ministers of Foreign Affairs
from Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro to sign a Joint
Declaration expressing their collective will to resolve the protracted refugee and
displacement situation. They committed their countries to a Regional Housing
Program (RHP) for refugees and IDPs supported by international donors.
The RHP was designed to create durable solutions for up to 74,000 of the
most vulnerable refugees and IDPs in those countries. While principally affecting
housing, the RHP has established the Regional Coordination Forum to discuss
other pertinent issues such as unpaid pensions, civil documentation, exchange of
data and other public information. An international donors’ conference in April
2012 succeeded in raising over $340 million (€260 million) in pledges to support
39
(134 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 97 of 137
the RHP over five years. The United States has provided $20 million between
FY12 and FY14, and U.S. involvement is seen as a critical ingredient to the RHP’s
success. With over a dozen projects approved and several well-underway, we
expect FY16 and FY17 to be the years where we see housing solutions to be
completed and delivered to a large number of beneficiaries eligible for the RHP.
Although governments have taken important steps to assist individuals
displaced by the collapse of the Soviet Union and related conflicts, IDPs and
returnees still await housing compensation, restitution, or alternative
accommodation provision in the North and South Caucasus. The Caucasus region,
comprised of parts of Russia, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, still hosts over
1.3 million persons of concern for PRM. The Nagorno-Karabakh War displaced
over 800,000 Azerbaijanis in several waves between 1988 and 1994. Today
600,000 IDPs remain, almost 7 percent of Azerbaijan’s population. The vast
majority live in temporary shelters, administrative buildings, dormitories, and
hostels. The government is increasingly providing housing and livelihood support
to vulnerable IDPs, but more needs to be done to support integration to aid its
displaced population.
Armenia received 350,000 refugees from Azerbaijan, of whom almost 3,000
ump , 2017
v. Tr countries, and nearly
remain as refugees. A large number emigrated to otherber 12
wai'i
f Ha eptem refugees and former
o
90,000 were ultimately naturalized in Armenia. Many
State ed on S
refugees continue to liveited in rchiv
c in unsuitable collective housing or remote villages with
6, a
insufficient access to government services. A struggling economy and the recent
1642
1 influx of an estimated 7
No. 17,000 Syrian-Armenians has left the Armenian government
few resources to address refugee concerns, and the country remains dependent on
international humanitarian and development assistance. Georgia also has been
affected by large population movements since the 1990s as consequences of the
breakup of the Soviet Union and the occupation of two regions, Abkhazia and
South Ossetia. Although an estimated 147,000 people have returned to their
homes in the Gali district (in the Abkhazia region), secured a durable housing
solution elsewhere in Georgia, or remained in their original places of residence
near the South Ossetia region, approximately 265,000 remain displaced from the
1993 and 2008 wars.
Finally, in Ukraine, fighting between government troops and combined
Russian-Separatist forces continues despite the signing of ceasefire agreements in
September 2014, February 2015, and September 2015. Russia’s attempted
occupation of Crimea, and the fighting in parts of eastern Ukraine have resulted in
over two million people displaced from their homes, including over 1.3 million to
neighboring countries. Although most IDPs have settled in regions bordering the
conflict zone, they are increasingly settling in more remote areas of the country as
40
(135 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 98 of 137
host communities reach absorption capacity. Integration opportunities are limited
for displaced individuals as displacement increases, and needs outstrip the response
capacity of local governments and community groups.
Religious Freedom
The status of religious freedom varies widely across Europe and Central
Asia. Some countries place legal restrictions or prohibitions on the wearing of
religious attire in schools, in government employment, or in public, particularly
impacting Muslims, Jews, Christians, and Sikhs.
Several countries in the region mandate the registration of religious groups.
Registration typically is required to rent or own property, hold religious services,
appoint military and prison chaplains, and receive state subsidies. Restitution of
religious properties is an issue yet to be fully resolved. Nontraditional religious
groups are sometimes labeled as “sects” or “cults” by their home governments and
may be subject to harassment and discrimination.
Uzbekistan’s policy is to ban Islamic groups it broadly determines as
extremist and to criminalize membership in such groups.mIn Turkmenistan, there
u p
17
v. Tr r 12, 20 threats of
i
i'arbitrary detention,
were reports in 2014 of beatings, imprisonment,
a
be
Haw
ofreligious ptem
sexual assault, searches, confiscation of
Se materials, and verbal abuse
ate
in St iveJehovah’s Witnesses. Under Tajikistan’s
d on
against religious minorities, particularly
cited , arch
law, persons under the age 426 cannot participate in public religious activities
16 of 18
. 17- highest Islamic religious body ban women from the
and a ruling by Tajikistan’s
No
majority Hanafi Sunni Muslim community from attending public religious
services. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are designated by the Department of State
as CPCs under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for systematic,
ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom.
There is a disturbing increase in anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim sentiment in
a number of countries in the region, manifested as physical assaults and verbal
harassment; hate speech over the internet; and vandalism of cemeteries,
synagogues, mosques, community centers, and monuments. In January, Amedy
Coulibaly killed four Jewish hostages and critically injured four others at a kosher
supermarket in Paris. According to media reports citing survivors of the siege,
Coulibaly was explicit about wishing to kill Jews. In several countries, openly
anti-Semitic, nationalistic political parties have gained seats in parliaments, with
government officials and elected members of parliaments at times responsible for
anti-Semitic statements and acts. Acts of anti-Semitism persisted among far-right
organizations; various groups continued to commemorate World War II fascist
leaders. Political parties opposing Muslim immigration drew support.
41
(136 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 99 of 137
Bans on Kosher/Halal slaughter exist in several European countries, while
there are increasing calls for bans or restrictions on circumcision, particularly in
the Nordic countries. Both circumcision and Kosher/Halal slaughter are religious
practices for Jews and Muslims, as well as some other religious groups.
The Russian government uses its anti-extremism law to justify raids, arrests,
and bans on religious literature of peaceful, “non-traditional” minority religious
groups, including readers of Muslim theologian Said Nursi, Jehovah’s Witnesses,
Scientologists, Falun Gong practitioners, and some Protestant groups.
Voluntary Repatriation
The international community continues to support efforts to create favorable
conditions for the return of ethnic minorities to their homes in the Balkans. In June
2006, Serbian, Kosovo, and UN authorities signed the Protocol on Voluntary and
Sustainable Return to Kosovo, which sought to improve the conditions for return
by focusing on three elements: ensuring the safety of returnees, returning property
to the displaced and rebuilding their houses, and creating an overall environment
that sustains returns. There is still much work to be done in ensuring that those
hoping to return have the means to do so.
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
PRM supported the return process through ptgrant to Danish Refugee
of H Se a em
te
Council in FY 2015 and to d inInternational n
the Sta ived o Organization of Migration in FY2016
h
cite
that promoted sustainable return arc
through income-generation activities including
426,
vocational training .and -16 provision of agricultural inputs, as well as community
17 the
No to facilitate inter-ethnic dialogue. International funding
development projects
continues to facilitate and sustain the return and reintegration of displaced
minorities from Kosovo. The Regional Housing program will allow thousands of
returns to take place in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro.
The program will encourage both voluntary repatriation and local integration as
durable solutions.
Local Integration
UNHCR has led efforts to create viable asylum systems and effective legal
protections for refugees in the Balkans, the Russian Federation, the South
Caucasus and Central Asia. However, ineffective implementation of these laws,
combined with the history of national animosities and xenophobia throughout the
region, often makes effective local integration difficult for ethnic minority
refugees. In Azerbaijan, a majority of refugees lack legal status, despite being
recognized by UNHCR and permitted by the government to stay in the country.
As such, refugees do not have access to legal employment, making local
integration in Azerbaijan extremely difficult. In Russia, difficulties in acquiring
42
(137 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 100 of 137
citizenship remain for some former Soviet citizens who resided in Russia before
1992 and are, under Russian law, entitled to Russian citizenship. Members of
groups such as Meskhetian Turks have been unable to obtain Russian citizenship
and thus remain stateless.
In Russia, UNHCR focuses on quality-assurance measures to strengthen the
national asylum system, including access to the asylum system at borders, and
measures contributing to the Government’s plans to bring its reception
infrastructure and processes up to international standards. In Montenegro, the path
to citizenship has been particularly slow for those displaced from Kosovo. The
Regional Housing Program should provide an easier path to local integration for
some of the most vulnerable, including members of Roma populations, among this
group. The Government of Serbia is implementing local integration programs for
refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia and the displaced persons from
Kosovo.
Third-Country Resettlement
The United States continues to accept refugees from the region. The vast
majority are members of religious minorities from former Soviet 017 countries
Union
mp
. Tru 1
vstandards2, 2 Lautenberg
i'i
who are adjudicated under the reduced evidentiary
a
ber of the
Haw p
ofaverageeoftempercent of the applicant pool
Amendment. While Jews comprisedean
85
Stat ed on S
in Christians now make up over 90 percent of the
in the early 1990s, Evangelical rchiv
cited , a
applicant pool. Around 16426
70 percent of the Lautenberg caseload is from Ukraine.
1 . to7Israel from the region continues under the United Israel
Jewish immigration
No
Appeal Program.
In addition to Lautenberg cases, the United States also accepts small
numbers of UNHCR referrals from Russia and Central Asian countries and
approximately 500 UNHCR-referred individuals from Malta each year. In an
effort to continue processing refugees trapped in DHS-inaccessible countries such
as Iran, Eritrea, and Yemen, the United States transfers UNHCR-referred cases of
Afghans, Somalis, and a variety of other African nationality refugees to UNHCR
Emergency Transit Centers (ETCs) in Timisoara, Romania and Humenne, Slovakia
for U.S. resettlement processing. Although limited by the number of bed space
available (200 beds in Timisoara and 250 in Humenne), the USRAP makes steady
use of the ETCs. (Note: these refugees are not counted against the Europe and
Central Asia ceiling, but against the region that includes the country of origin of
each refugee.)
43
(138 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 101 of 137
FY 2016 U.S. Admissions
In FY 2016 the United States plans to admit an estimated 4,000 refugees
from Europe and Central Asia, the majority of whom are Lautenberg religious
minority cases. Applicants are being processed in Almaty, Baku, Bishkek,
Dushanbe, Kyiv, Valletta, Minsk, Tbilisi, Moscow, Timisoara, and Humenne.
FY 2017 U.S. Resettlement Program
The proposed FY 2017 ceiling for refugees from Europe and Central Asia is
4,000 individuals. Priority 2 includes individuals from countries of the former
Soviet Union who will be adjudicated under the reduced evidentiary standards of
Lautenberg Amendment guidelines. Applications for the Lautenberg program
have increased substantially since the outbreak of conflict in Ukraine.
Proposed FY 2017 Europe and Central Asia program to include arrivals from
the following categories:
Priority 1 Individual Referrals
90
mp
u3,900
17
Priority 2 Groups
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be 10
awa
Priority 3 Family Reunification
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
Total Proposed Ceilingcited
4,000
ch
6, ar
1642
. 17No
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
In 2015, the number of refugees, asylum seekers, IDPs, and other persons of
concern in Latin America and the Caribbean surpassed seven million. The ongoing
conflict in Colombia generates the largest numbers of refugees and IDPs in the
region, and the second largest world-wide. The Government of Colombia (GOC)
reports 6.6 million IDPs as of February 2016. Despite an expanded state presence
and improved security in cities and towns throughout Colombia, displacement
continues. According to official government statistics, between January 2013 and
August 2015, approximately 15,000 people were forcibly displaced per month about 480,000 people in total. The main causes of displacement were
confrontations between the GOC and illegal armed groups, including the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army
(ELN), criminal gangs (BACRIM) and criminal narco-trafficking networks, as well
as landmines, extortion, and forced recruitment of children into armed groups.
44
(139 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 102 of 137
In surrounding countries, including Ecuador, Venezuela, Costa Rica, and
Panama, there are over 400,000 Colombian asylum seekers and refugees and the
number continues to rise. Ecuador has the highest number of recognized
Colombian refugees and asylum seekers in Latin America. As of December 2015,
the Government of Ecuador (GOE) had recognized over 62,000 refugees and
UNHCR reports an additional 180,000 persons of concern. The asylum process in
Ecuador is slow and difficult to access, while the approval rate is around six
percent. The GOE administers the pre-admissibility step in addition to the refugee
status determination (RSD) process, which creates additional delays. Asylum
seekers pending RSD can wait several years for a decision. UNHCR highlights a
challenging protection environment in Ecuador for refugees, citing delays in
registration, revocations of refugee status, labor exploitation, xenophobia and
discrimination. Other countries in the region, such as Costa Rica, Venezuela, the
Dominican Republic, and Panama, also have established asylum procedures, but
the registration and determination procedures are often implemented ineffectively.
UNHCR is working with these countries, including Ecuador, to improve their
asylum processes.
In Panama, most of the 17,000 recognized refugees and over 18,000 persons
of concern as of November 2015 were Colombians. After p
more than a decade of
7
Trum 2,status holders (PTH)
ineffective handling of the temporary humanitarian .protection 201
i'i v ber 1
a
situation, Panama’s Office for AssistanceHaw eptem(ONPAR) delivered
of to Refugees
te
S
permanent resident documentationa imost on holders in March 2014. As of late
in St to ved PTH
h
cited 16,623
2015, in Costa Rica, there are 6, arc recognized refugees and 8,000 of persons of
42
-1
concern to UNHCR. 1The6
o. 7 recognition rate for asylum applications increased from
N
7.5 percent in 2014 to almost 30 percent in 2015. Decisions in asylum cases in
Costa Rica can take up to a year, though asylum seekers have the right to work
while they are waiting for a decision. UNHCR reported in December 2015 that
there are 5,000 recognized refugees in Venezuela, and UNHCR estimates there are
more than 200,000 persons, mostly Colombians, live in a refugee-like situation in
the country. As of mid-2014 in Brazil, there were almost 6,000 recognized
refugees from 75 countries; the largest numbers are from Colombia and the
Democratic Republic of Congo.
Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala face extreme violence, including
sexual and gender-based violence, severe economic inequality and social
exclusion, and widespread corruption and poverty, compelling many people to flee
their homes each year. These factors, as well as the desire to reunify with family
members residing in the United States and seek economic opportunities in the
United States, contributed to an unprecedented number of unaccompanied children
and families with young children arriving in the United States in 2014.
45
(140 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 103 of 137
Religious Freedom
In Latin America and the Caribbean, religious freedom is widely recognized
and supported by government and society, though there are cases of religious
intolerance. In some isolated instances, Christian groups, mainly Evangelicals,
Protestants, and Mormons have reported impediments or complications to their
practice of religion, establishment of religious institutions, and importation of
religious materials. In some areas, there is harassment of Muslims, anti-Muslim
speech, and marginalization of Afro and indigenous religions. In Cuba, significant
government restrictions remain in place.
Although the constitution protects religious freedom, the Government of
Cuba continues to monitor aspects of religious life, including interference in
church affairs, surveillance of religious institutions, and harassment of outspoken
church leaders. The USRAP in Havana offers Cubans who have been persecuted
on a number of grounds, including their religious beliefs, the opportunity for
permanent resettlement in the United States.
Priests and other religious leaders in some parts of Mexico continued to be
targeted and received extortion attempts, death threats,rumpintimidation, often
and
017
i v. T e 12, leaders pressuring
i'reportsbofr local2
from organized criminal groups. There areawa
also
of H Septem
Protestants to convert through forced displacement, arbitrary detention, and
State e
in rural andd on
destruction of property cited
in some rchiv indigenous communities.
6, a
1642
17Manifestations of anti-Semitism that occurred throughout the hemisphere at
No.
times appeared correlated to the unfolding transitions to democracy in other parts
of the world. In Venezuela, anti-Semitism is a growing concern, including
instances of anti-Semitism in the government-controlled media.
Voluntary Repatriation
Given the threats and violence in Colombia from illegal armed groups (nonstate actors) and the lack of state presence to provide full protection in some areas,
UNHCR has not been actively promoting repatriation of Colombian refugees.
Local Integration
The Governments of Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Venezuela have
maintained policies that theoretically allow Colombians in need of protection to
obtain asylum and integrate locally, although the processes involved are usually
slow and cumbersome. The governments' capacity to review applications and
confer refugee status remains limited. Even registered refugees with the right to
work in these countries struggle to find stable employment or income
46
(141 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 104 of 137
opportunities, competing with the large number of poor in host communities.
Colombians seeking international protection face high levels of discrimination and
xenophobia, and the ability to locally integrate is difficult. Furthermore, refugees
do not live in camps, but rather the large majority live in urban areas. Some
Colombian persons of concern (including refugees and asylum seekers) in
Ecuador, Costa Rica, Panama, and Venezuela continue to experience harassment
by persons associated with armed Colombian groups operating in these countries.
Security remains a major concern for the Government of Panama, and
Panamanians often equate refugees with drug trafficking and crime.
The Department of State is currently supporting UNHCR’s efforts to assist
the Dominican Republic and other Caribbean countries in developing systems for
conducting refugee status determinations for asylum seekers, including Haitians.
UNHCR’s office in the Dominican Republic and its continued presence in Haiti
have contributed greatly to its ability to address the protection needs of refugees,
asylum-seekers, and displaced and stateless persons in mixed migration flows
throughout the region. Despite Dominican Republic restarting its refugee
eligibility committee (CONARE) in 2012, the asylum process remains
dysfunctional. We also remain concerned that individuals are at risk of
statelessness in the Dominican Republic due to the September 20137
Constitutional
p
Trum 2, 201
Tribunal ruling.
1
i'i v.
awa tember
fH
o
Third Country and In-Country State
Resettlement Sep
on
n
ted i archived
ci
,
In the past, local -16426
7 integration had been the solution best suited to regional
1
N in
refugee problems o. Latin America. In recent years, however, third-country
resettlement has become an important alternative for those who face physical risks
and have urgent protection needs. Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark,
Norway, and the United States offer resettlement to at-risk Colombian refugees.
Currently, the United States accepts referrals from UNHCR and embassies in the
region and processes these cases principally in Ecuador, with occasional cases in
Costa Rica and other countries throughout the region. Under the “Solidarity
Resettlement Program,” a component of the Mexico Plan of Action which sought
regional solutions to the Colombian refugee issue, countries in the region including
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay are working with UNHCR to resettle a
modest number of Colombian refugees. The United States also facilitates the
resettlement to third countries of persons interdicted by the U.S. Coast Guard in the
Caribbean or who enter Guantanamo Naval Station directly and are found by
DHS/USCIS to have a well-founded fear of persecution or to be more likely than
not to face torture if repatriated to their country of origin. From 1996 to date,
approximately 412 such protected persons have been resettled to 20 countries
worldwide.
47
(142 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 105 of 137
The U.S. government also operates an in-country refugee resettlement
program in Cuba. The number of persons seeking refugee resettlement has
decreased, and the backlog of cases pending review by the Department of State for
access to the USRAP has been eliminated. The decrease in new applications
reflects a shrinking pool of qualified applicants. The Refugee Section at the U.S.
Embassy has not received any recent information regarding individuals who have
been prevented by the Cuban government from traveling through the in-country
refugee settlement program.
Cubans eligible to apply for admission to the United States through the incountry program include the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Former political prisoners;
Active members of persecuted religious minorities;
Human rights activists, long-standing members;
Forced labor conscripts (1965-68); and
Persons deprived of their professional credentials or subjected to other
disproportionately harsh or discriminatory treatment resulting from their
perceived or actual political or religious beliefs.
ump 2017
v. Tr r 12, the Central
On December 1, 2014, PRM and DHS/USCIS launched
e
wai'i
f Ha eptemb program in El Salvador,
o
American Minors (CAM) program, tan in-country refugee
S
ae
in St ived on
Guatemala, and Hondurased unmarried children under 21 of certain lawfully
cit for , arch
present parents residing 16the6
in 42 United States. If the second parent is resident in the
. 17- child and is married to the parent who is resident in the
country of origin with the
No
United States, that parent can also be considered for resettlement, but would have
to establish an independent refugee claim. The U.S. government established the
program to provide a safe, legal, and orderly alternative to the dangerous journey
that some children are currently undertaking to join their parents in the United
States. To apply, an eligible parent who is lawfully present in the United States
must complete the Affidavit of Relationship (AOR, Form DS-7699) with the
assistance of a State Department-funded resettlement agency. Applicants found by
DHS/USCIS to be at a risk or harm but not eligible for refugee resettlement are
considered on a case-by-case basis for parole. Unlike refugee status, parole is
temporary and does not confer any permanent legal immigration status or path to
permanent legal immigration status in the United States.
On July 26, 2016 the White House announced the expansion of refugee
processing and access to resettlement in the United States for vulnerable
individuals from Central America, in partnership with UNHCR. The CAM
program will expand to allow additional categories of applicants when these family
members accompany a qualified child: sons and daughters of a U.S.-based lawfully
48
(143 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 106 of 137
present parent who are 21 years or older and/or married; in-country biological
parent of the qualified children; and caregivers of qualified children who are also
related to the U.S.-based lawfully present parent.
DHS/USCIS and the State Department also continue to work on expansion
of refugee processing in Central America beyond the CAM program. The
Government of Costa Rica announced a protection transfer arrangement (PTA)
with the UNHCR and IOM. Through UNHCR and IOM, the USG will pre-screen
vulnerable Salvadoran, Honduran, and Guatemalan applicants and will transfer
applicants most in need of immediate protection to Costa Rica, where they will
undergo refugee processing before being interviewed by DHS/USCIS and
considered for resettlement to the United States. For cases not requiring immediate
transfer to Costa Rica, an in-country referral program will be established to
interview certain cases for refugee protection.
FY 2016 U.S. Admissions
We anticipate admitting approximately 1,500 refugees from Latin America
and the Caribbean during FY 2016, including Central American minors,
p
Colombians, and Cubans. Historically, most Cuban admissions were former
17
Trum
v. program2, 20expanded in 1991
1 was
i'i
political prisoners and forced labor conscripts.aThe ber
m
Haw
to include human rights activists, tate of professionals, and others with claims of
displaced n Septe
o
in S
persecution, which currently composeved majority of admissions.
cited , archi the
426
7-16 Program
1
FY 2017 U.S. Resettlement
No.
The proposed 5,000 ceiling for Latin America and the Caribbean for FY
2017 comprises Cuban refugees eligible for the in-country Priority 2 program;
Central American Minors eligible for the in-country Priority 2 program; UNHCRreferred Priority 1 Colombians and Central Americans; as well as a small number
of Priority 3 family reunification cases.
Proposed FY 2017 Latin America program to include arrivals from the following
categories:
Priority 1 Individual Referrals
950
Priority 2 Groups
4,000
Priority 3 Family Reunification
50
Total Proposed Ceiling
5,000
49
(144 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 107 of 137
NEAR EAST AND SOUTH ASIA
The Near East/South Asia region remains host to more than 12 million
refugees, primarily Palestinians, Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis, Somalis, Burmese,
Bhutanese, Sri Lankans, and Tibetans. Countries hosting the largest populations of
refugees are Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, and Jordan. Few countries in the
region are party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and/or
its 1967 Protocol. Nonetheless, many host governments tolerate the presence of
refugees within their borders.
UNHCR, UNRWA, ICRC, IOM, WFP, UNICEF, and other humanitarian
organizations work with refugees in the region. Some countries have provided
long-term protection and/or asylum, mainly to Tibetans, Bhutanese, Sri Lankans,
Palestinians, Afghans, Iraqis, Somalis, Syrians, and a handful of other nationalities.
Refugees identified by UNHCR for third-country resettlement include Iraqis in
Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, and the Gulf States; Bhutanese in
Nepal; Afghans in Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Syria, and India; and Iranians in Turkey.
As of December 31, 2015, nearly 222,000 Iraqi refugees were registered
with UNHCR in the region. IOM reports that more thanmp million7Iraqis have
u 3.4
1
v. Tr r of , 20
i'i Iraq bAs 12March 2016, there
been displaced since January 2014 by violenceain
e
m
Haw
are nearly 250,000 Syrian refugees in Iraq, as well tas approximately 30,000
te of on Sep e
ta
in S
ed
refugees and asylum seekers of other iorigins (including Palestinians and Iranian
cited , arch v
Kurds). The U.S. government is providing humanitarian assistance to internally
426
7-16 from Iraq throughout the region through support to
displaced Iraqis No. refugees
and 1
international and non-governmental organizations. U.S. funding seeks to ensure
conflict-affected Iraqis receive shelter, water, sanitation, health care, protection,
and education. Since the start of Fiscal Year 2014, the United States has provided
nearly $915 million in essential humanitarian assistance.
Intense fighting in Syria has caused massive displacement, both internally
and to countries in the region. Inside Syria, 13.5 million Syrians require
humanitarian assistance, and 6.5 million are internally displaced. Nearly 4.6
million Syrians are living in areas that are besieged or difficult to reach. Some
440,000 people, and perhaps many more, remain vulnerable due to continued
combat between and among Syrian regime forces and allies of the Syrian
government and various anti-regime armed groups, such as the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant. Outside of Syria, neighboring countries are hosting 4.8
million refugees. Hospitals are filled to capacity, schools are running double
shifts, the availability of water has decreased, and housing rents are rising in
communities hosting Syrians. The crisis in Syria and its spillover effects have
pushed the number of Lebanese living below the extreme poverty line ($2.40 per
50
(145 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 108 of 137
day) to 404,000. The number of poor Lebanese and refugees in Lebanon has risen
by an estimated 110 percent since 2011. Meanwhile, Turkey has spent
approximately $10 billion to support refugees, through construction and services in
high-quality camps and other support to non-camp communities. Jordan is also
making significant outlays and will require $8 billion between 2016 and 2018 to
meet refugee needs and strengthen Jordanian communities.
The U.S. government is providing humanitarian assistance to internally
displaced Syrians and refugees from Syria across the region through support to
international organizations, such as UNHCR, UNICEF, UNRWA, UNFPA, IOM,
ICRC, and WFP, as well as through non-governmental organizations, which are
providing critical assistance in virtually all sectors, including water and sanitation,
shelter, education and medical care. The U.S. government, the single largest
global donor, had provided nearly $5.6 billion in critical humanitarian assistance
since the start of the Syria crisis.
Despite the voluntary repatriation of over 5.8 million Afghan refugees since
2002, Pakistan and Iran continue to host, respectively, approximately 1.5 million
and 950,000 registered Afghans, many of whom have resided in these countries for
over three and a half decades. The maintenance of asylump protection space for
Trum and 2017
i'i v. while continuing to support
those refugees who cannot yet return to Afghanistan ber 12,
awa em
of H U.S. tgovernment and for UNHCR.
voluntary repatriation, is a top priority for the Sep
State e on
in some i2-3dmillion Afghans are believed to live and
In addition to Afghan refugees, rch v
cited , a
work in Pakistan and Iran6426
1 as economic migrants without documentation. Over
. 17- and asylum seekers are also registered with UNHCR in
11,000 Afghan refugees
No
India. Identifying durable solutions remains an important component of UNHCR’s
strategy in India. Local integration in South Asia remains a difficult option due to
opposition from most host countries.
Tens of thousands of ethnic Nepali Bhutanese were forced out of Bhutan in
the early 1990s as a result of the Bhutanese government’s policy of “one nation
and one people” (also referred to as “Bhutanization”). Despite 17 rounds of formal
negotiations between Bhutan and Nepal, and pressure from the United States and
other governments to resolve the issue and secure the right of return for Bhutanese
refugees, particularly humanitarian cases, to date none have been permitted to
return. Due to concerted resettlement efforts commenced in late 2007 by the
United States and other resettlement countries, over 102,000 Bhutanese refugees
have departed after spending two decades in camps in eastern Nepal; of whom
more than 86,000 have resettled in the United States. The U.S. government
continues to press the Government of Bhutan to help resolve this protracted
situation by accepting the return of eligible refugees who wish to voluntarily
repatriate. Similarly, the U.S. government encourages the Government of Nepal to
51
(146 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 109 of 137
allow the projected 10,000-12,000 refugees who will remain in the camps
following the conclusion of third country resettlement to work, gain legal status,
and access public education, health care, and other services.
Religious Freedom
Persecution of religious groups is common in many countries in the Near
East and South Asia that are countries of origin for refugee populations entering
the United States. State and local government responses to violence against
members of religious groups, particularly Muslims and Christians, are often
inadequate. Although many of these countries do not have Jewish populations,
anti-Semitism is prevalent, and often espoused by governments or religious
leaders.
In Afghanistan, religious freedom is limited due to constitutional
contradictions, legislative ambiguity, and interpretations of Islamic law that punish
apostasy and blasphemy.
In Pakistan, the penal code includes blasphemy laws that carry punishments
ranging from imprisonment to the death penalty. Frequentp , 2017 these laws
Trum abuses of
i'i v. and er 12
negatively affect religious minorities, both awa emb non-Muslims. In 2014, 12
HMuslims
te of on Sept and the courts sentenced at
new cases were registered underSta blasphemy law,
n the
ted i peopleived
least three people to death, six , arch to life-imprisonment, and three people to
ci
two-year jail terms, and-16426 one person for committing blasphemy. The
acquitted
1
o. to7
government has N
yet carry out a death sentence for blasphemy. Nevertheless, at
least 17 people are awaiting execution for blasphemy, and at least 20 others are
serving life sentences.
In Sri Lanka, religious tensions continue to be a problem, and Muslim,
Hindu, and Buddhist communities often distrust one another. In 2014, under the
previous government, local authorities failed to respond effectively to communal
violence, including attacks on members of minority religious groups, and
perpetrators were not brought to justice. In June 2014 at least three Muslims were
killed and scores injured in clashes with hardline Buddhists in Aluthgama and
Beruwalla. The incident occurred after the Bodu Bala Sena, a hardline violent
ethnic Sinhala Buddhist organization with links to the previous government, held a
large rally in the streets of Aluthgama. Non-governmental organizations alleged
that senior and local government officials provided assistance to or, at a minimum,
tacit support for the actions of societal groups targeting religious minorities.
52
(147 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 110 of 137
In Bhutan, Buddhism is the state’s “spiritual heritage,” although in the
southern areas many citizens openly practice Hinduism. There is subtle pressure
on non-Buddhists to observe the traditional Buddhist values and some limitations
on constructing non-Buddhist places of worship remain. Some societal pressures
toward non-Buddhists are reflected in official and unofficial efforts to uphold the
“spiritual heritage” (Buddhism) of the country.
In Iran, religious groups, including Sunni Muslims, Baha’is, Sufis, Jews,
Zoroastrians, Yaresanis, and Christians, continue to face official discrimination,
harassment, and arrest. Members of the Shia community who express religious
views different from those of the government are also subject to harassment and
intimidation. The government continues convictions and executions of dissidents,
political reformists, and peaceful protesters on the charge of moharebeh (enmity
against God), anti-Islamic propaganda, and other religion-related charges, which it
often links to national security.
In Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) targeted many of its
attacks and abuses on the basis of religious and ethnic identity. On March 17,
2016, Secretary Kerry announced that, in his judgment, ISIL is responsible for
genocide against groups in areas under its control, including Yezidis, Christians,
ump , 2017
v. Tr for1crimes against
and Shia Muslims. He also said that ISIL is responsible r 2
e
wai'i
f Ha eptemb
humanity and ethnic cleansing directed at these same groups and in some cases
o
S
ate
also against Sunni Muslims, Kurds, andeother minorities. Ongoing sectarian
in St iv d on
cited , a ch
tensions and discrimination4affect rall of Iraq’s religious and ethnic communities.
26
7-16
As a result, some of these religious communities, along with their ancient
1
No.
languages and customs, are on the verge of disappearing.
In Syria, the Assad regime increased its targeting and surveillance of
members of a variety of faith groups it deemed a threat, especially members of the
country’s Sunni majority. This occurred concurrently with the escalation of
violent extremist activity targeted against religious minorities, including
Christians, Druze, Alawites, Yezidis, and others as the civil war continues. Largescale internal and external displacement of all sectors of the population is ongoing.
In Lebanon, the constitution requires the state to respect all religious groups
and declares equality of rights and duties for all citizens without discrimination or
preference, and stipulates that there be a balance of political power among the
major religious groups. Sectarian violence, including attacks by ISIL, al-Nusra,
and other extremist groups, increased significantly during 2015, straining relations
among the country’s 18 officially-recognized religious groups. Despite the rise in
violence, political and religious leaders have been vocal in their opposition to
violent extremism and in their support of peaceful coexistence across sectarian
divides. Religious group identity remains a significant element of social
53
(148 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 111 of 137
interaction and cultural expression, and places of worship continue to exist in
relative peace and security. Relationships among individual members of different
religious groups are generally amicable, with some exceptions.
In Turkey, some religious minority communities, including Alevis, face
difficulties owning property, registering places of worship, and gaining exemptions
from compulsory Sunni Islamic instruction. Faith-based conscientious objectors in
Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Turkmenistan are sometimes arrested and prosecuted for
failing to comply with laws mandating military service.
In some countries in the region, most notably Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi
Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt, blasphemy and defamation of religion laws are used
to restrict religious liberty, constrain the rights of religious minorities, and limit
freedom of expression, and those accused face prison sentences and threats of
violence. In most countries in the region, Sharia courts decide personal status
cases, which generally forbid conversion by Muslims. Iran and Saudi Arabia are
designated by the Department of State as CPCs under the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998 for systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious
freedom.
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20 refugees who
i
i'in various ways to
The USRAP provides resettlement access
e
awa
f any country, b
oofH Septem including CPCs, may be
suffer religious persecution. Nationals
State ed n
in a Priority 1oreferral by UNHCR or a U.S. embassy
referred to the USRAP cited
through rchiv
6, a
for reasons of religious persecution. Under the Lautenberg-Specter Amendment,
1642
Iranian religiousNo. 17
minorities designated as Priority 2 category members are
considered under a reduced evidentiary standard for establishing a well-founded
fear of persecution.
Voluntary Repatriation
Since 2002, over 5.8 million Afghan refugees have returned to Afghanistan,
mostly from Pakistan and Iran. Over 4.7 million have been assisted by UNHCR in
the largest repatriation operation in UNHCR’s history. Despite a slight increase in
2015 due to pressures placed on refugees in Pakistan, the era of mass returns has
largely ended Returned refugees represent roughly 20 percent of Afghanistan’s
total population and overwhelm the country’s capacity to absorb them.
It is unlikely that all of the remaining 2.5 million registered Afghans in
Pakistan and Iran will repatriate in the near future. UNHCR and IOM report the
continuing migration of Afghans in both directions across the AfghanistanPakistan border is part of a larger process of economic and social migration that
has been occurring for centuries. UNHCR is working with the Governments of
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran and the international community to develop
54
(149 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 112 of 137
policies and programs to sustain voluntary returns. They are also working to better
manage the residual Afghan population in Pakistan by working toward longer-term
protection and migration solutions. IOM is seeking a greater role in border
management and in developing regional mechanisms for economic migration that
would bolster protection for Afghans. The Government of Afghanistan is working
to increase its capacity in helping returnees fold back into Afghan economic and
social structures and at the same time prioritizes continued protection for Afghan
citizens still seeking refuge abroad. UNHCR, together with the Governments of
Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan, continue to work toward implementing UNHCR’s
Solutions Strategy for Afghan Refugees to Support Voluntary Repatriation,
Sustainable Reintegration and Assistance to Host Countries (SSAR). The SSAR
provides for the orderly, voluntary return of Afghan refugees and emphasizes the
need to reintegrate returned refugees into their communities fully.
Stabilizing the displaced Afghan population – e.g., reintegrating returning
refugees and IDPs into Afghan society and preserving asylum space for refugees in
neighboring countries – is critical to regional stability, as is addressing irregular
migration. The Afghan government has also adopted a national IDP policy which
seeks to address protection, assistance, and durable solutions for displaced
populations within its borders. With assistance fromTrump and17
UNHCR 0 others, the
i'i v. ber 12, 2
Afghan government began implementing thewa policy in 2015.
a IDP
of H Septem
te
The United States continuesa iworkon other interested governments in
in St to ved with
ted
h
urging the Governmentci Bhutan rto allow for the voluntary repatriation of
of 26, a c
4
Bhutanese refugees. to7-16 under acceptable terms and conditions. With the
1 Bhutan
Noin Sri Lanka in 2009, nearly 13,000 refugees have returned with
end of the conflict
UNHCR assistance. However, the number of Tamils seeking to return from India
has decreased. So far in 2016, UNHCR assisted in the voluntary return of 163
Tamil refugees to Sri Lanka.
Local Integration
The SSAR promotes enhancing support for refugee-hosting communities
and providing some alternative stay arrangements for refugees in Afghanistan and
Iran. While some progress is being made, few countries in the region offer local
integration to refugees. In July 2013, the Government of Pakistan endorsed the
policies found in the National Policy on Management and Repatriation of Afghan
Refugees beyond 30th June, 2013. At the same meeting, the Cabinet extended the
validity of Afghan Proof of Registration cards and the Tripartite Agreement
(among the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan and UNHCR) until
December 31, 2015. As part of the Pakistan implementation of the SSAR and in
partnership with the Government of Pakistan and UN agencies, UNHCR launched
the Refugee-Affected and Hosting Areas (RAHA) initiative in 2009. This program
55
(150 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 113 of 137
is widely regarded as a success in addressing Afghan refugee and Pakistani host
community needs by rehabilitating areas that have been adversely affected by the
presence of Afghan refugee communities over the past 30 years. The United States
will continue to work with UNHCR and the Government of Pakistan to preserve
asylum space and promote alternative stay arrangements. However, at present,
local integration is not an option for most of the Afghan refugees.
Local integration is currently not an option for Iraqi refugees who settled in
the region, though Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon have preserved first asylum and
protection space for Iraqi refugees. Syria hosted approximately 22,000 UNHCRregistered Iraqi refugees as of December 31, 2015. Jordan and Lebanon host
approximate 53,000 and 17,000 Iraqi refuges respectively. Both countries closely
manage their borders, requiring Iraqis to obtain visas before entering, which
effectively limits the number of Iraqis able to seek asylum as not all are able to
secure visas.
Iraqis in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan are not legally defined as refugees, but
rather as guests or, in the case of Jordan, asylum seekers. These governments
allow UNHCR to register Iraqis. With help from the international community, the
governments of Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan have allowed Iraqi students to enroll in
7
ump
public schools, though they are often required ai'ipayTr rwhich 01 be
to v. fees 12, 2 may
e
prohibitively expensive for refugees e of Haw eptemb assistance, and
without international
t
S
enrollment numbers are low in Sta ived onrefugees in Syria, Lebanon and
Similarly Iraqi
h
cited , health
Jordan have access to the public arc care systems, but are required to pay fees to
426
-16
access services. Refugees in Lebanon and Syria are not legally allowed to work,
o. 17
though many doN in the grey economy. Although Iraqis, like all foreigners in
so
Jordan, can work legally in several labor sectors, few have obtained the necessary
work permits because these require possession of residency permits, which the
GOJ is not issuing to Iraqis.
With the incredible rise in the number of displaced since January 2014 and
the continuing violence throughout Iraq, many Iraqi IDPs will not be able to return
to their home communities in the near future. While it is still too soon to seek
local integration support, it is important for displaced Iraqis to be able to access
services in their areas of displacement.
While Turkey ratified the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and acceded to its
1967 Protocol, the Turkish government acceded to the Protocol with a geographic
limitation acknowledging refugees only from Europe. While nearly all asylum
seekers are thus not considered refugees under Turkish law, the Turkish
government grants temporary refuge and temporary local integration possibilities
to refugees recognized by UNHCR usually pending their referral to a potential
resettlement country. As of March 2016, there were over 250,000 refugees, as well
56
(151 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 114 of 137
as those pre-registered and registered with UNHCR Turkey, the majority from Iraq
and Afghanistan. UNHCR-recognized refugees and asylum seekers in Turkey are
assigned to one of 64 satellite cities. Provincial governments are responsible for
meeting refugees’ basic needs, including by providing access to employment,
healthcare, and education, although support varies from one location to another.
The 2.7 million Syrians that Turkey hosts are not counted under these regulations
as they are afforded temporary protection status instead of conditional refugee
status.
Turkey’s “Foreigners and International Protection Law” regulates the entry,
exit, and the stay of migrants in the country, along with the scope of international
protection for those who seek asylum in Turkey. The law went into full
implementation on April 11, 2014, creating a new entity within the Ministry of
Interior, the Directorate General for Migration Management (DGMM). DGMM is
responsible for implementing most aspects of the law, including temporary
protection registration and exit permit issuance. DGMM continues to build up
staff size and capacity, expand its regional scope, and refine roles and
responsibilities with other Turkish agencies in emergency response for refugees.
In January 2015, DGMM passed a regulation allowingrump refugees to work
Syrian
17
v T r 12 20
i'i of. Labor for ,work permits and
officially. Employers must apply to the Ministry
awa t be
of H work in em province where they are
there are restrictions such as refugees must n Sep the
ate
in St iford o than six months, and company staff
registered, must have lived d Turkey ve more
cite in , arch
cannot be more than 10 percent Syrian. The effect of these restrictions is that very
426
7-16
few Syrian refugees 1 working legally in Turkey.
No. are
Despite the increasing number of asylum seekers and refugees, India does
not have a clear national policy for the treatment of refugees, and UNHCR has a
limited mandate in the country. India permits UNHCR to assist asylum seekers
and urban refugees in New Delhi and other cities, primarily Burmese, Afghans,
and Somalis. UNHCR-recognized asylum seekers and urban refugees are eligible
to apply for long-term visas that, if granted, are renewable for five years, provide
work authorization and access to higher education and public services. India
recognizes and aids certain groups, including Sri Lankan refugees in the 112 camps
in Tamil Nadu and Tibetan refugees in the 39 settlements and other urban areas
throughout the country. The Government of India provides support and benefits to
registered Tibetan and Sri Lankan refugees. It also grants work authorization and
other rights to documented Tibetans. However, Sri Lankan refugees in India do
not receive work authorization from the central government but have authorization
from the state government to work in the state of Tamil Nadu.
57
(152 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 115 of 137
Third-Country Resettlement
The USRAP anticipates the continued large-scale processing of Syrians and
Iraqis, and, to a lesser extent, Bhutanese, Afghans and Iranians, during FY 2017.
In the Near East, the United States recognizes that the possibility of thirdcountry resettlement must be available to the most vulnerable Iraqi and Syrian
refugees, and has processing facilities in Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo, Erbil,
and Istanbul. The U.S. Embassy in Syria is shuttered and interviews are not
currently taking place in Damascus.
In late 2013, UNHCR announced its intention to refer 30,000 Syrian
refugees for resettlement in third countries by the end of 2014 and, as noted above,
referred nearly 36,000 in 2015. UNHCR is on track to meet its goal of referring up
to 100,000 additional Syrian refugees by the end of 2016. The United States is
playing a significant role in this effort. The majority of Syrian referrals will be
processed in Jordan, Turkey, and Egypt, and to a lesser extent in Lebanon and
Erbil, the Kurdistan region of Iraq, and elsewhere. As of late June 2016, UNHCR
had referred over 48,000 Syrians for U.S. resettlement consideration. In FY 2015,
the United States admitted 1,682 Syrian refugees andTaimsp admit 7 least 10,000
rum to , 01 at
i'i v. increase 2
in FY 2016. With UNHCR’s decision to significantly ber 12 Syrian referrals for
awa tem
of H processing operations in Jordan,
resettlement, the United States is ramping up Sep
ate
in St ived on
Turkey, and Egypt in FYit2017. rch
c ed , a
426
7-16 been resettling Iraqis in large numbers since 2007.
The United o. 1 has
N States
While many Iraqis gain access to the USRAP via a referral from UNHCR, direct
access to the USRAP for Iraqis with close U.S. affiliations is also available in a
limited number of countries in the region. The Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act, enacted
January 28, 2008, created categories of Iraqis who are eligible for direct access
(Priority 2) to the USRAP, both inside and outside Iraq. Individuals who meet the
following criteria may seek direct access to USRAP in Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt,
Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and
the United Arab Emirates:
1. Iraqis who work/worked on a full-time basis as interpreters/translators for
the U.S. Government, MNF-I in Iraq, or U.S. Forces-Iraq;
2. Iraqis who are/were employed by the U.S. Government in Iraq;
3. Iraqis who are/were employees of an organization or entity closely
associated with the U.S. mission in Iraq that has received U.S.
Government funding through an official and documented contract, award,
grant or cooperative agreement;
58
(153 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 116 of 137
4. Iraqis who are/were employed in Iraq by a U.S.-based media organization
or non-governmental organization; and
5. Spouses, sons, daughters, parents, and siblings of individuals described in
the four categories above, or of an individual eligible for a Special
Immigrant Visa as a result of his/her employment by or on behalf of the
U.S. Government in Iraq, including if the individual is no longer alive,
provided that the relationship is verified.
In addition to the above, the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act provides direct
access to the USRAP to Iraqis who have close family members in the United
States, which has been defined as beneficiaries of approved I-130 Petition for
Alien Relative petitions, as well as to their derivatives.
Refugee processing in Iraq remains a high priority for the United States, as it
directly benefits Iraqis associated with U.S. efforts in Iraq. Although security and
logistical challenges associated with operating in Iraq limit in-country processing
capacity, both the RSC and DHS/USCIS interviews in Baghdad in mid-2015.
In February 2016, direct access (Priority 2) to the USRAP was extended to
Syrian beneficiaries of approved I-130 Petition for Alienmp
Relatives and their
Tru Egypt,2017 Israel, Jordan,
derivatives. Processing is available in Algeria, Bahrain, r 12, Iraq,
i'i v. be
awa Arabia, and the United Arab
Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi ptem
of H
tate d on Se
Emirates.
in S
e
cited , archiv
42
Since the United -States 6 unable to conduct refugee resettlement directly
7 16 is
. 1with the Government of Austria to allow for certain Iranian
No
from Iran, we partner
religious minority applicants (Baha’is, Zoroastrians, Jews, Mandaeans, and
Christians) to travel from Iran to Austria for their U.S. resettlement processing.
These refugees are considered under a reduced evidentiary standard for
establishing a well-founded fear of persecution granted by the Lautenberg-Specter
Amendment. The Amendment was reauthorized December, 18 2015, allowing
new applications to be filed and adjudicated under the reduced evidentiary
guidelines. In Turkey, the United States also processes Iranian religious minorities
(primarily Baha’i) through special procedures involving a “fast-track” refugee
status determination and referral by UNHCR.
Resettlement processing for Bhutanese refugees in Nepal is continuing
smoothly and the United States remains committed to considering for resettlement
all Bhutanese refugees who expressed interest to UNHCR by June 30, 2014. As of
April 20165, UNHCR had referred over 115,000 Bhutanese refugees for
resettlement to eight countries and more than 102,000 of these Bhutanese refugees
have been resettled to these countries – over 86,000 resettled in the United States –
since late 2007. Processing of Bhutanese refugees who have declared interest in
resettlement will conclude within two years.
59
(154 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 117 of 137
In India, UNHCR refers some 400 individuals per year, with priority given
to those it deems most vulnerable. The majority of referrals are Burmese.
UNHCR also refers a very limited number of refugees out of Sri Lanka, mostly
Pakistanis. We continue to explore modalities for processing vulnerable Tibetan
refugees in the region.
FY 2016 U.S. Admissions
We estimate the admission of approximately 38,000 refugees from the
region in FY16. These will include up to15,000 Iraqis, 13,000 Syrians, 6,000
Bhutanese, 4,000 Iranians, and approximately 500 Afghans, including Afghan
refugees in Iran processed through UNHCR Emergency Transit Centers in
Slovakia and Romania.
FY 2017 U.S. Resettlement Program
The proposed regional ceiling for refugees from the Near East and South
Asia for FY 2017 is 40,000, including vulnerable Syrians, Iraqis, Bhutanese,
Iranians, Pakistanis, and Afghans. We expect Priority 1 UNHCR referrals for all
of the aforementioned nationalities, including individuals from various and diverse
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
religious and ethnic groups in the region, such ai'i Assyrians, Mandeans, Iranian
as
be
aw
Kurds, Syrian Kurds, and Ahmadi Muslims. Many em
of H Sept Iraqis, Syrians, and Iranians
ate
in St specific
will also access the USRAP throughhived onPriority 2 programs.
cited , arc
6426
7-1East/ South Asia program to include arrivals from the
1
Proposed FY 2017 .Near
No
following categories:
Priority 1 Individual Referrals
19,000
Priority 2 Groups
20,900
Priority 3 Family Reunification
100
Total Proposed Ceiling
40,000
60
(155 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 118 of 137
DOMESTIC IMPACT OF REFUGEE ADMISSIONS
In FY 2015, the USRAP admitted 69,933 refugees from 59 countries. More
than half were originally from either Burma or Iraq. (See Table III.)
The demographic characteristics of refugee arrivals from the 20 largest
source countries (representing close to 100 percent of total arrivals) in FY 2015
illustrate the variation among refugee groups. The median age of all FY 2015
arrivals was 25 years and ranged from 20 years for arrivals from Burundi, Central
African Republic, Dem. Republic of Congo, and Somalia to 37 years of age for
arrivals from Cuba and Iran. In FY 2015, 47.68 percent of all arriving refugees
were female and 52.33 percent of all arriving refugees were male. Males
predominated among refugees from Palestine (57.6 percent), Burundi (55.3
percent), and Pakistan (54.1percent). (See Table IV.)
Of the total arrivals in FY 2015, some 11.3 percent were under the age of
five, 28.2 percent were of school age, 61.6 percent were of working age, and 2.7
percent were of retirement age. (See Table V.) Considerable variation among
refugee groups can be seen among specific age categories. Refugees under the age
of five ranged from a high of 15.5 percent among Burmamp
to a
Tru arrivals017 low of 2.2
12, 2
i'i v. bchildren (from five to 17
percent of those from Iran. The number of awa
school-aged er
H
te
of47.4 percentm arrivals from Rwanda to a
years of age) varied from a high ofaover
t te d on Sep of
in S
low of 11.7 percent of those from rchive
cited , a Iran. The number of working-aged refugees (16
to 64 years of age) varied 6426 a high of 78.2 percent of those from Iran to a low
1 from
. 17of 50.5 percent of o
N individuals from Burundi. Retirement-aged refugees (65 years
or older) ranged from a high of 10.5 percent of arrivals from Iran to a low of less
than one percent of those from Pakistan.
During FY 2015, 61 percent of all arriving refugees resettled in 12 states.
The majority were placed in Texas (10.7 percent), followed by California (8.2
percent), New York (5.8 percent), Arizona (4.5 percent), Michigan (4.3 percent),
and Ohio (4.3 percent). The states of Georgia (4.1 percent), Pennsylvania (4
percent), Illinois (3.8 percent), Washington (3.8 percent), Florida (3.5 percent), and
North Carolina (3.5 percent) also were in the top twelve states where refugees were
resettled. (See Table VI.)
61
(156 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 119 of 137
TABLE III
Refugee Arrivals By Country of Origin
Fiscal Year 2015
Country of Origin
Arrival Number
% of Total
910
1.30%
Angola
5
0.01%
Bangladesh
3
0.00%
Bhutan
5,775
8.26%
Burma
18,386
26.30%
Burundi
1,186
1.70%
8
0.01%
Central African Republic
270
0.39%
Chad
16
0.02%
China
30
0.04%
2
0.00%
Ecuador
1
0.00%
Egypt
13
0.02%
Equatorial Guinea
2
0.00%
1,596
2.28%
626
0.90%
2,362
3.38%
Gambia
3
0.00%
Guinea
3
0.00%
India
1
0.00%
Indonesia
3
0.00%
Iran
3,109
4.45%
Iraq
12,676
18.13%
Afghanistan
Cameroon
Colombia
mp 200.74%
17
521 v. Tru
12,
i'i
ber
awa
0.07%
of H 52eptem
State ed on S
in
1,527
2.18%
cited , archiv
426
7,876
11.26%
7-16
Congo
Cuba
Dem. Rep. Congo
Djibouti
No.
1
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Former Soviet Union*
62
(157 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 120 of 137
Ivory Coast
28
0.04%
Jamaica
1
0.00%
Jordan
2
0.00%
Kenya
3
0.00%
Korea, North
15
0.02%
Kuwait
4
0.01%
Lebanon
3
0.00%
Liberia
12
0.02%
Mali
4
0.01%
Nambia
1
0.00%
Nepal
26
0.04%
Netherlands
1
0.00%
Nigeria
4
0.01%
Pakistan
159
0.23%
Senegal
4
0.01%
Sierra Leone
6
0.01%
8,858
12.67%
South Africa
2
0.00%
Sri Lanka (Ceylon)
89
0.13%
Sudan
1,578
2.26%
Syria
1,682
2.41%
Togo
1
0.00%
Tunisia
7
0.01%
Turkey
2
0.00%
Uganda
67
0.10%
Vietnam
35
0.05%
Yemen
16
0.02%
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 200.14%
Palestine
99'i
i
be
awa
of H 79eptem
Rep. of South Sudan
0.11%
S
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
Rwanda
173
0.25%
6
1642
Saudi Arabia No. 17
3
0.00%
Somalia
63
(158 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 121 of 137
Zimbabwe
7
69,933
TOTAL
0.01%
100.00%
Source: Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Refugee Processing Center
No.
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
1
64
(159 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 122 of 137
TABLE IV
Median Age and Gender of Refugee Arrivals, Fiscal Year 2015
Rank
(# of
Arrivals
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
TOTAL
Refugees
Median
%
Country of Origin
Admitted
Age
Females
Burma
18,386
23
44.71%
Iraq
12,676
26
47.01%
Somalia
8,858
20
49.36%
Dem. Rep. Congo
7,876
20
50.47%
Bhutan
5,775
29
50.35%
Iran
3,109
37
50.56%
Former Soviet Union*
2,362
28
50.08%
Syria
1,682
21
47.44%
Eritrea
1,596
21 p
47.99%
17
Trum 2, 2047.08%
Sudan
1,578ai'i v.
22 r 1
be
aw
Cuba
1,527
46.95%
of H Septem 37
State ed1,186
on
Burundi
20
46.45%
in
cited , archiv 910
Afghanistan
23
48.79%
426
7-16
Ethiopia 1
626
23
46.80%
No.
Colombia
521
24
51.24%
Central African Republic
270
20
48.14%
Rwanda
173
22
48.55%
Pakistan
159
24
45.91%
Palestine
99
28
42.42%
Sri Lanka (Ceylon)
89
27
47.19%
All Other Countries
475
26
42.10%
69,933
25
47.68%
Source: Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Refugee Processing Center
65
%
Males
55.28%
52.99%
50.63%
49.53%
49.64%
49.43%
49.91%
52.55%
52.00%
52.91%
53.04%
53.54%
51.20%
53.19%
48.75%
51.85%
51.44%
54.08%
57.57%
52.80%
57.68%
52.33%
(160 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 123 of 137
TABLE V
Select Age Categories of Refugee Arrivals, Fiscal Year 2015
Rank
(# of
Arrivals)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
TOTAL
School
Working
Age
Age
Under 5
(5-17)
(16-64)
Country of Origin
Yrs
Burma
15.55%
23.74%
62.48%
Iraq
10.83%
25.64%
62.64%
Somalia
12.57%
35.36%
55.59%
Dem. Rep. Congo
10.15%
40.50%
53.82%
Bhutan
7.87%
22.21%
68.65%
Iran
2.18%
11.70%
78.22%
Former Soviet Union*
9.44%
26.50%
62.23%
Syria
14.44%
37.21%
51.42%
Eritrea
7.83%
36.71%
62.53%
Sudan
11.21%
35.80%
567
ump
1 08%
v. Tr r 12, 20
Cuba
3.99%i
18.46%
70.92%
e
wai'
f Ha 65% ptemb
o 13 e
Burundi
39.29%
50.50%
State ed on S
Afghanistan ited in
5.49%
34.83%
66.37%
iv
c
arch
Ethiopia
13.09%
23.00%
66.29%
426,
7-16
Colombia 1
7.29%
30.13%
66.41%
No.
Central African Republic
12.22%
38.88%
53.33%
Rwanda
5.20%
47.39%
58.96%
Pakistan
8.80%
27.04%
66.03%
Palestine
4.04%
30.30%
65.65%
Sri Lanka (Ceylon)
7.86%
23.59%
67.41%
All Other Countries
6.52%
25.26%
72.63%
11.34%
28.25%
61.60%
Retirement
Age
(=or > 65)
1.24%
3.62%
0.96%
1.32%
5.00%
10.51%
5.08%
1.36%
0.43%
1.07%
10.15%
1.51%
1.20%
0.79%
0.76%
1.11%
0.57%
0.00%
4.04%
3.37%
0.21%
2.67%
NOTE: Totals may exceed 100 percent due to overlapping age categories.
Source: Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Refugee Processing Center
66
(161 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 124 of 137
TABLE VI
Refugee Arrivals By State of Initial Resettlement, Fiscal Year 2015
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
No.
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
% of
Refugee
Amerasian
Total
Total Arrivals
Arrivals
Arrivals
Arrivals
to U.S.
0.15%
105
0
105
0.21%
146
0
146
4.48%
3,133
0
3,133
0.02%
13
0
13
8.18%
5,718
0
5,718
2.47%
1,730
0
1,730
0.74%
519
0
519
0.01%
9
0
9
0.01%
5
0
5
ump , 2017
3.55%
2,478
2 . Tr
2,480
ai'i v ber 12
4.13%
2,889
2,889
Haw 0 m
te of on Septe
t
0.01%
0
7
n S7a
ted i 935rchived
ci
1.34%
0
935
6, a
16422,658
3.80%
0
2,658
172.56%
1,793
0
1,793
1.13%
783
4
787
1.06%
741
0
741
2.85%
1,990
0
1,990
0.19%
135
0
135
0.61%
425
0
425
2.16%
1,508
0
1,508
2.41%
1,688
0
1,688
4.31%
3,012
0
3,012
3.28%
2,288
3
2,291
0.02%
15
0
15
2.05%
1,431
0
1,431
1.72%
1,200
0
1,200
0.87%
610
0
610
0.64%
446
0
446
0.45%
314
0
314
67
(162 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 125 of 137
STATE
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Total
% of
Refugee
Amerasian
Total
Total Arrivals
Arrivals
Arrivals
Arrivals
to U.S.
0.30%
207
0
207
5.79%
4,052
0
4,052
3.54%
2,475
0
2,475
0.71%
497
0
497
4.27%
2,989
0
2,989
0.68%
479
0
479
1.47%
1,029
0
1,029
3.95%
2,764
0
2,764
0.26%
185
0
185
0.32%
226
0
226
0.69%
484
0
484
2.19%
1,530
0
1,530
10.69%
7,479
0
7,479
1.59%
1,109
0
1,109
0.45%
312
0
312
1.88%
1,312
0
1,312
3.75%
2,621
4
2,625
ump , 2 17
v. Tr r 1231 0
i
0.04%
31
e
wai'0
f Ha eptemb 1,415
2.02%
1,415ate o
0
St
on S13
in
d
69,933
100.00%
ited69,920 hive
c
arc
426,
- 6
Note: Arrival figures do not1
o. 17 reflect secondary migration.
N
Source: Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Refugee Processing Center
68
(163 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 126 of 137
TABLE VII
ESTIMATED AVAILABLE FUNDING FOR REFUGEE PROCESSING AND RESETTLEMENT
FY 2016 AND FY 2017 ($ MILLIONS)
ESTIMATED
FY 2016
AVAILABILITY
(BY DEPARTMENT)
AGENCY
ESTIMATED
FY 2017
AVAILABILITY(BY
DEPARTMENT)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Refugee Processing 1
$50.0
$67.8
$656.6
$634.5
$720.9
$841.9
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
Refugee Admissions 2, 3
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families,
Office of Refugee Resettlement
Refugee Resettlement 4
$1,427.5mp
ESTIMATED TOTAL AVAILABILITIES
$1,544.2
017
Tru
,2
1
'i v.
FY 2016: Includes cost factors to reflect Headquartersifacilities rent12
awa tember related to the refugee
resettlement program, projected staffingate of H Sep following-to-join refugee
enhancements, and
St costs. d on
in
processing, in addition to certain ICASS ive
cited , arch
6
2
FY 2016: Includes FY 2016 642
7-1 Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) appropriation of $462.7
1
million, $70 million in.Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) funding, $44.5
No
million in PRM carryover from FY 2015, $64.4 million in projected IOM loan
collections/carryover, and an estimate of $15 million in prior year MRA recoveries. A portion of
these funds will be carried forward into FY 2017.
3
FY 2017: Includes FY 2017 MRA budget request of $567.5 million, $61 million in projected
IOM loan collections/carryover, and an estimate of $6 million in prior year MRA recoveries.
Additional funds carried forward from FY 2016 will be available in FY 2017.
4
FY 2016 and FY 2017: HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement’s (ORR) refugee benefits and
services are also provided to asylees, Cuban and Haitian entrants, certain Amerasians from
Vietnam, victims of a severe form of trafficking who have received certification or eligibility
letters from ORR, and certain family members who are accompanying or following to join
victims of severe forms of trafficking, and some victims of torture, as well as Iraqi and Afghan
Special Immigrants and their spouses and unmarried children under the age of 21. The estimated
funding for these groups is included here. However, none of these additional groups is included
in the refugee admissions ceiling except Amerasians. This category does not include costs
associated with the Unaccompanied Children’s Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF), Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income programs, or the Victims of
Trafficking. These estimates do not include any prior year carryover funding. The estimated FY
2017 figures above reflect the President’s FY 2017 Budget request.
69
(164 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 127 of 137
TABLE VIII
UNHCR Resettlement Statistics by Resettlement Country CY 2015 Admissions
RESETTLEMENT
COUNTRY
United States
TOTAL
52,583
PERCENT OF TOTAL
RESETTLED
Canada
10,236
12.50%
Australia
5,211
6.36%
Norway
2,220
2.71%
Germany
2,097
2.56%
Sweden
1,808
2.21%
United Kingdom
1,768
2.16%
Finland
964
1.18%
New Zealand
756
.92%
France
700
.85%
p
Trum 2, 2017
1
i'i v.
664
.81%
awa tember
fH
o
p
Se
ate
.78%
in St 642 d on
e
iv
ted
ci
arch
486
.60%
426,
7-16
Switzerland
Austria
Denmark
Albania
No.
64.21%
1
483
.59%
Netherlands
428
.52%
Belgium
276
.34%
Ireland
178
.22%
Italy
96
.12%
Spain
92
.11%
Luxembourg
49
.06%
Rep. of Korea
42
.05%
Portugal
39
.05%
Japan
19
.02%
Liechtenstein
17
.02%
Belarus
14
.02%
70
(165 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 128 of 137
Iceland
13
.02%
Brazil
6
.01%
Hungary
2
.00%
Romania
2
.00%
Poland
2
.00%
81,893
100.00%
TOTAL
Resettlement country figures (submissions and departures) may not match UNHCR reported
figures as resettlement country figures may include submissions received outside of UNHCR
auspices. UNHCR figures may also include cases in which UNHCR did not submit but assisted,
i.e. obtaining exit permits for humanitarian admissions or family reunion.
No.
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
1
71
(166 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 129 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(167 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 130 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(168 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 131 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(169 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 132 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(170 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 133 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(171 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 134 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(172 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 135 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(173 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 136 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
(174 of 174)
Case: 17-16426, 09/07/2017, ID: 10573301, DktEntry: 73-2, Page 137 of 137
No.
1
ump
17
v. Tr r 12, 20
i'i
be
awa
of H Septem
ate
in St ived on
cited , arch
426
7-16
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?