State Responsibility for Forced Migration

International refugee law does not hold states accountable for the forced migration they cause. Using the international law doctrine of state responsibility, this Article aims to shift the discourse on migration policy towards a state accountability approach that considers the role states play in causing forced migration. This Article uses state responsibility to explore the obligations of a state after it commits a violation of international law that results in forced migration. The general principle undergirding state responsibility is that a state should provide full reparation for harms caused by its violation of an international obligation. Applying state responsibility to forced migration, a state must provide reparation for forced migration caused by the state’s violation of international law. Potential forms of reparation include monetary remedies and the resettlement of forced migrants. An examination of forced migration through the lens of state responsibility can better protect migrants and hold states accountable for their unlawful actions that cause displacement

Language Access and Due Process in Asylum Interviews

The Department of Homeland Security does not provide interpreters to asylum applicants during their asylum interviews, instead requiring them to supply their own. This Article challenges this deprivation of language access as a procedural due process violation because it denies limited English proficient asylum seekers meaningful access to the statutorily created affirmative asylum process. The Department of Homeland Security\u27s failure to provide interpreters can silence limited English proficient asylum seekers by depriving them of the opportunity to meaningfully present their claims. Asylum seekers, especially those who are low income or speak rare languages, face significant challenges in finding suitable interpreters. Many are forced to use nonprofessional interpreters who are not qualified to interpret in complex legal settings. Inaccurate interpretation can have severe ramifications, like unwarranted denials of asylum applications, which could result in asylum applicants being removed to countries where they face persecution. The failure to provide interpreters at asylum interviews is one example of the weaponization of language access, designed to erect barriers to protection in the United States and subordinate certain categories of migrants. Only by challenging and changing these procedures will limited English proficient asylum seekers have equal access to the asylum system

Gender-Based Religious Persecution

People fleeing gender-based violence in the home face an uphill battle when seeking asylum in the United States. Through the lens of public and private spheres, this Article explores the underutilized religion ground for asylum for cases involving gender-based violence in the home—i.e., the private sphere. This Article argues that if an individual imposes a patriarchal practice on an asylum seeker in the private sphere and justifies that practice using religion, the asylum seeker’s resistance to that practice should constitute religious expression.The religion ground protects individuals who are persecuted because of their religious beliefs and religious expression. It typically is invoked by individuals fearing persecution in the public sphere for activities such as proselytizing and communal worship, where proving the link—the nexus—between the persecution and the asylum seeker’s religious beliefs or expression is relatively straightforward. Asylum seekers infrequently invoke the religion ground for abuse in the private sphere, however, due to that nexus requirement. To satisfy nexus, an asylum seeker must show that the persecution is on account of their protected characteristic, not the characteristic of the abuser. At first glance, claims involving gender-based violence in the private sphere seem to involve individuals imposing their religious beliefs on others, which generally would not qualify for asylum.Where an asylum seeker resists a patriarchal practice in the home that is justified by religion, that resistance should constitute a “private expression” of religion, regardless of whether the asylum seeker frames their resistance in religious terms. If the asylum seeker is harmed for their opposition to a patriarchal practice justified by religion, the persecution is on account of their religious views opposing those of the persecutor and thus satisfies the nexus requirement. This Article thereby reframes gender-based violence in the private sphere as gender-based religious persecution. While encouraging a broader interpretation of the religion ground to better protect individuals fleeing gender-based violence, this Article concludes with a caution against essentializing religion and attributing such violence to a religion wholesale

Reimagining Sovereignty to Protect Migrants

The concept of sovereignty in international law allows states to exclude and expel most categories of migrants, subject only to very narrow exceptions from international human rights and refugee law. Inverting the state sovereignty paradigm traditionally used to exclude migrants, this Essay reimagines sovereignty to protect migrants by drawing on the international law doctrine of state responsibility. The doctrine of state responsibility requires states to remedy the consequences of their actions in violation of international law. States that violate the sovereignty of other states, more specifically their territorial integrity or political independence, and thereby cause forced migration should have an obligation to provide remedies for it. Such remedies could include providing a safe haven for migrants. Exploring migration through the lens of state responsibility may provide new opportunities to expand protection for migrants

Paper Terrorists: Independence Movements and the Terrorism Bar

This Article explores the application of the terrorism bar in immigration law to noncitizens who have participated in an independence movement. It proposes a uniform standard that immigration adjudicators can use to determine whether a foreign entity is a state in order to promote accurate applications of the terrorism bar. The terrorism bar in the Immigration and Nationality Act is broad — it can bar most forms of immigration relief, including asylum, and reaches far beyond ordinary definitions of terrorism. For example, the terrorism bar can block immigration relief for noncitizens who nonviolently supported a militia fighting for independence against a repressive state or who received military-type training from such an organization. The terrorism bar applies even if that militia is supported by the United States. The bar can also ensnare a noncitizen’s spouse and children who have not themselves participated in those activities. Especially in light of its far reach and harsh consequences, it is of the utmost importance to accurately apply the bar, which can be challenging for cases on the margins. One such area is the application of the bar to noncitizens who have supported independence movements leading to the creation of new states, which are situations that often produce large numbers of asylum seekers and refugees. The complexity arises because the terrorism bar requires unlawful conduct, but participation in and support of a state’s armed forces are not unlawful. During an independence movement, a new state can emerge, and support of its armed forces is not unlawful even though hostilities may continue with the state from which it seceded. Adjudicators need to be able to determine when an entity achieved statehood because it could mean the difference between a noncitizen participating in unlawful rebellion, which could trigger the terrorism bar, and supporting the armed forces of a state, which would not. However, there is currently no uniform framework for analyzing questions of statehood in the context of the terrorism bar. Drawing from international law and domestic law, this Article proposes a standard that immigration adjudicators can use to assess questions of statehood to avoid the creation of “paper terrorists” — noncitizens who have participated in independence movements and are mistakenly labeled as terrorists under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This proposal stems from, and is consistent with, the statutory language of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and therefore does not require any legislative action. The proposed standard encourages immigration adjudicators to give full effect to the statutory language to promote more accurate applications of the terrorism bar

The Categorical Approach for Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude After Silva-Trevino

A conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) can result in harsh immigration penalties such as removal from the United States for noncitizens. The designation of a crime as a CIMT depends on whether moral turpitude inheres in its elements. Administrative adjudicators and federal courts have thus been using a categorical approach that focuses on the elements of a crime to determine whether it is a CIMT. Although variations in the categorical approach have developed among the circuits, the categorical approach has customarily employed two steps, both focusing on the elements of the conviction rather than the actions of the noncitizen. In 2008 in Matter of Silva-Trevino, the Attorney General added a third step to the categorical approach that permits adjudicators to consider the acts of the noncitizen convicted of the crime. This Note analyzes the circuit split that widened after Silva-Trevino, focusing on the variations in the first two steps of the categorical approach and on the Attorney General\u27s novel third step. This Note ultimately rejects Silva-Trevino\u27s third step and concludes that adjudicators should adopt a uniform categorical approach to safeguard noncitizens from erroneous deportation and to ensure consistent application of the immigration laws throughout the nation

A Survey on Performance Analysis of AODV in MANETS

Mobile Ad-Hoc Network (MANET) is a temporary network built up to satisfy momentarily certain condition. This paper gives an introduction to one of the MANET reactive routing protocol AODV i.e. Adhoc on demand distance vector routing protocol. It also includes general working of AODV protocol .It also includes survey of performance of AODV protocol depending on different input parameters. This paper also present NS2 simulator being used in simulating it?s performance

Pregnancy outcome in patients with fibroid: a retrospective study

Background: Fibroids are benign smooth muscle cell tumour of the uterus. In some patients of pregnancy associated with fibroid, it does not affect the outcome of pregnancy. On the other hand, various complications have been reported. The aim of our study was to evaluate the outcome in antenatal women with fibroids.Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at tertiary care center, obstetrics & gynecology department over a period of eighteen months between June 2018 to November 2019. Total 26 pregnant patients with >3 cm fibroid was included in the study. They were followed during antenatal period. Maternal age, parity, size of fibroid, complications during pregnancy, labour, and delivery, mode of delivery and indications of cesarean section were noted.Results: Out of 26 patients, 15 (57.6%) were between 26-30 years of age group and 16 (61.53%) were multigravidas. Normal vaginal delivery occurred in 8 (33.33%), while 16 (66.66%) delivered by caesarean section. There were 9 (34.61%) patients who had no complication whereas 17 (65.38%) had some complication. Pain was present in 8 (30.76%). PROM and preterm labour were present in 3 (18.75%) and 5 (19.23%) respectively. PPH was present in 2 (7.69%).Conclusions: Pregnant patients who have fibroids are to be carefully screened in the antenatal period, so as to have a regular follow up. The widespread use of ultrasonography has facilitated diagnosis and management of fibroids in pregnancy. The site and size of fibroid is very important to predict its effect on pregnancy