Asylum for Draft Dodgers

Not too long ago, I helped a Jehovah’s Witness who was persecuted for refusal to serve in the military get asylum in immigration court.  In some countries, conscientious objectors are treated very poorly (including torture).  The US will generally not grant asylum to people who fear harsh punishment for refusing to serve in the military, but there are certain exceptions.   The two main exceptions are (1) when a draft dodger would suffer disproportionately because of race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion; and (2) when the military takes the type of actions condemned by the international community as contrary to the basic rules of human conduct.

Sovereign nations have the right to enforce draft laws and punish evaders, but when they single out certain draft dodgers because of their race, religion, ethnic or national origin, social group or political opinion, such punishment is persecution.  See UNHCR Refugee Handbook ¶169.  For example US courts have stated that asylum should be granted to Jehovah’s Witnesses from Eritrea, who are subjected to torture and other harsh treatment for refusal to serve in the military.   Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 385 F. 3d 1116, 1120 (7th Cir. 2004).

In addition, there are some cases where a person can claim asylum for refusing to serve in an unpopular military.  Although the standard stated is when the refusal to serve in the military is based on genuine political, moral, or religious convictions, those convictions must involve opposition to military actions that are internationally condemned.    UNHCR Refugee Handbook ¶¶170-174.  As the Refugee Handbook states at ¶171:

It is not enough for a person to be in disagreement with his government regarding the political justification for a particular military action. Where, however, the type of military action, with which an individual does not wish to be associated, is condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct, punishment for desertion or draft-evasion could, in the light of all other requirements of the definition, in itself be regarded as persecution.

The key is whether the military is committing acts beyond the normal atrocities of war, such as ethnic cleansing, or other crimes against humanity.  And those acts have to be condemned by “recognized international governmental bodies,” not just non-governmental organizations, no matter how well regarded.  M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 312-13 (4th Cir. 1990).  The court has to believe that the objection is genuine, however, and that the objector will actually be punished. Mojsilovic v. INS, 156 F. 3d 743, 747 (7th Cir. 1998).

The examples where US courts have granted asylum for conscientious objection, however, have generally involved action against one’s own countrymen or ethnic group:

That’s not to say that the US courts haven’t or wouldn’t grant asylum for refusal to join militaries that have committed other atrocities.  I would welcome links to other cases where this has happened.

Edit: In the original post, I referred to the 4th Circuit panel decision in M.A. v. INS, where the court granted the petitioner relief. This decision was subsequently vacated and the en banc decision cited above resulted. This is why it’s not a good idea to rely on blog posts for legal research. :-) For an interesting discussion of the M.A. en banc decision see this post at the BenachRagland blog.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>