Authored by Yash Sharan and Abhishek Nande, II Year Students at the Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
Introduction
On 18 July 2024, 27 Cameroonian asylum seekers were granted asylum by the United States of America (“US”) government after enduring tenacious exploitation in the US and Cameroon. The asylum seekers were brought back to the US under humanitarian parole, which highlighted imperative issues in the realm of human rights and immigration law. The Anglophone Crisis of 2016 became the backdrop of significant social and political turmoil in the nation. Instigated by the protests of English-speaking professionals against working in Francophone settings, the country became a hotbed of violence, human rights abuses, and displacement. This resulted in a violation of several rights, inter alia, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) which provides that no person should be arbitrarily deprived of their right to life, and Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”), which states that no person should be subjected to degrading treatment. As a result, several Cameroonians, fleeing this unrest, pleaded for asylum in the US, citing persecution based on ethnic identity, political and social opinion, and other grounds protected under the Refugee Convention of 1951.
Through this blog, the authors delve into the quandary around the plight of these asylum seekers. Firstly, the blog examines their exodus from the national turmoil and the irregularities in the legal framework governing refugee protection leading to violation of human rights. Further, it also points out the problems with borders and the challenges of navigating US immigration policies. It also presents a transient shift from betrayal to redemption, providing a renewed sanctuary to the asylum seekers. Moreover, it discusses the Indian stance on asylum seekers and refugee protection. The conclusion provides a summary and some suggestions for moving forward.
Barred at the Border: The Erosion of Asylum Rights Under US Immigration Policies
Most asylum seekers flew to various nations within Africa, with some others even fleeing to South American nations. These refugees journeyed overland through the southern border of the US to plead for asylum. This was in contravention of Section 1325(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“the Act”) of the US which provides punitive measures for improper entry by aliens. In 2017, the Trump administration came into power, and made the US immigration system more stringent. Consequently, in 2019, the US issued its third-country transit asylum ban, which prospectively restricted asylum seekers from entering the US through its southern border. In the case of East Bay v. Barr, the US Supreme Court did not put a stay on the ‘transit ban.’ Taking a cue from the Supreme Court, the immigration judges rampantly refused to provide asylum to Cameroonians. However, subsequently, in CAIR Coalition v. Trump, the court ruled the third-country transit asylum ban unlawful, finding it in conflict with U.S. immigration laws and international obligations. This decision reinforced asylum rights and highlighted the balance between security and human rights. Individual measures were replaced like tiles in a mosaic, but the overall picture remained unchanged.
In March 2020, the US implemented Title 42, an immigration policy that authorized expulsions of refugees without asylum protection or screening, stripping the asylum seekers of the opportunity to have their claims properly reviewed. This, in turn, is violative of Section 1158 of the Act. Additionally, it contravenes the basic provision of non-refoulement of the Refugee Convention. Thus, under Title 42, the asylum seekers were forced back to Cameroon, only worsening their ordeals. During deportation, asylum seekers endured human rights abuses such as assault, sexual violence, and disappearances. Furthermore, the Cameroonian asylum seekers for the most part had to suffer through incidents of abusive solitary confinement at the hands of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), in clear violation of Rule 43 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, which bars any disciplinary sanction that may be “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” by nature.
Broken Trust, Renewed Hope: The Ripple Effects of ICE’s Disclosure on Asylum Seekers
A concerning aspect of this pandemonium is the violation of the right of confidentiality of the asylum seekers by the ICE officials, who reportedly did not shield asylum-related details from the Cameroonian officials which led to the persecution of the asylum seekers. The pleas of the asylum seekers to be allowed to remove their confidential documents before they are deported were callously ignored. This resulted in the violation of Section 208.6 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which restricts the disclosure of confidential information about refugees or asylum seekers to third parties. Section 208.6only permits the dissemination of information to US government officials or contractors who require its access for their duties and to any federal, state, or local courts handling legal proceedings in the US. Therefore, Cameroon qualifies as a third party. The breach of confidentiality has established a climate of persecutory retaliation against asylum seekers, which the regulation was designed to ameliorate. The US announced humanitarian parole for these asylum seekers in May 2024 to atone for several mistakes made during their deportation. As a result, Cameroon was designated the Temporary Protected Status until June 2025, thus protecting Cameroonians in the US from deportation.
The issue of asylum seekers explains how complex immigration law is in violation of human rights. Asylum seekers must be given justice, fairness and humane treatment in order not to equal the hardships they have undergone in their past by hardships in their future.
India’s Ad-hoc Asylum Framework: What Would Happen in a Cameroon-like Crisis?
There have been various instances of asylum deportation in India, such as that of Rohingyas. Therefore, the study of India’s asylum law also becomes relevant.
The Indian stance seems not only to be flexible but also discriminatory. India lacks a stringent regulatory framework for dealing with refugees and asylum seekers, since India is neither a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention nor the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1967. Additionally, India lacks a comprehensive domestic law governing asylum and refugee protection. Instead, the country depends on some pieces of legislation, constitutional sections, executive orders, and international treaties to decide the fate of refugees and those seeking asylum. Any group of refugees that the government wants to deport can be labelled as trespassers under the Foreigners Act 1946 or the Passports Act 1967 and this has been seen in the Rohingyas despite the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (“UNHCR”) verification. The Rohingya situation in India is not similar to the Cameroonian crisis; however, in both situations, there is the persecution of vulnerable populations, and asylum seekers are seeking asylum in countries that do not have the necessary legislation, adequate legal protections or political will to support refugees. The government has claimed that the Rohingyas are a security threat and has tried to deport them to Myanmar, where violence continues, consequently violating the principle of non-refoulment.
Attempts have been made to bring an asylum law into the picture, such as the introduction of the Asylum Bill, 2015 (“bill”) which intended to put India “at the forefront of asylum management in the world.” However, the bill suffers from several shortcomings, including the lack of recognition of mixed migration, inadequate response to mass influxes, and a limited scope of protection categories. Asylum is equated with refugee status and does not propose institutions such as the National Commission on Asylum which would be autonomous and effective. In essence, the bill marks progress to a previously unaddressed arena; nevertheless, it lacks a comprehensive framework for the management of asylum in India.
Following are the ideal principles that future asylum law should uphold and which the bill should align with: First, asylum as a concept is complex; second, the flow of refugees and other migrants is complex; third, large groups require attention in addition to the traditional individual processing methods; fourth, as for the goal of immigration and asylum legislation, the broad objective is the management of asylum and the governing of refugees. Most recently, India passed the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, which is the closest this nation has come to policy change on refugees in the recent past; however, this policy provides Indian citizenship to refugees in a partisan manner based on faith.
If a situation similar to that of these Cameroonian asylum seekers unfortunately arises in India, legal frameworks such as the Registration of Foreigners Act 1939 and Foreigners Act 1946 would take the baton. Further, this includes the UNHCR, which is active in India, providing support in processes like refugee status determination for selected organisations. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, coupled with the principle of non-refoulement (though not codified in Indian law, is generally upheld in practice), plays a crucial role in regulating the legal framework around refugees and asylum seekers. Since India deals with refugees on a case-by-case basis, often influenced by geopolitical considerations, this ad-hoc approach gives the Indian executive a wide ambit of powers for selecting who should receive protection, preferential treatment, or admittance, and for selecting who should be denied access or deported. Nevertheless, it may be difficult to enforce and prosecute asylum laws in the country since there are no explicit laws to regulate how the exercise should be conducted. Thus, the situation would have been handled capriciously at the will of the Indian executive.
Suggestions and Way Forward
To solve the stated quandary, it is suggested that refugees’ information is to be utilized only to determine their cases and not shared with people who would exploit it in any way. Such a violation not only jeopardizes the life of the concerned asylum-seeker but also the overall credibility of the system. The purpose of asylum seekers is to avoid persecution in their country. The disclosure about them would place a serious threat to their security and make them vulnerable to violence. This situation has, in some way, breached the principle of non-refoulement.
To avoid the plight of asylum seekers, the US government should take several key measures from the outset. Firstly, instead of implementing the rigid Title 42, which permits the expulsion of asylum seekers without proper screening, leading to significant injustices, the US government should ensure fair asylum screening under Section 1158 of the Act, allowing all asylum seekers to have their claims properly reviewed. Secondly, ICE officials should refrain from inhumane practices, such as abusive solitary confinement, and should treat asylum seekers with dignity and respect. The disclosure of confidential information by US officials, in violation of Section 208.6 of the Code of Federal Regulations, resulted in severe repercussions for the Cameroonian asylum seekers, who faced persecution upon their return to Cameroon. This breach of confidentiality could have been entirely avoided by following the principle of non-disclosure.
In contrast, India’s approach to asylum lacks a structured framework. India’s asylum law is inadequate, lacking comprehensive regulation and international treaty adherence. Therefore, the question of asylum is addressed through the Registration of Foreigners Act 1939 and Foreigners Act 1946 which often lead to discriminatory practices, as seen with the Rohingyas. Recent attempts such as the bill and Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 show partial progress but significant gaps remain. It is suggested that a comprehensive asylum law should be enacted which is aligned with international standards. Without such a framework, the government may issue asylum based on its whims and fancies. Thus, it should establish clear procedures for claims, protection measures, and rights of asylum seekers to ensure fairness and consistency.
The US government and the world should recognise the severity of the crisis in Cameroon, which jeopardized the safety of asylum seekers. Refusing them asylum in such situations not only did not spare endangered people but also incited violations of international law. Hence, despite the formal recognition of refugees’ rights in the US, its practical protection remains partial and contentious. The government must guarantee that these laws are complied with passion towards morality and ethics. Governments across the world should ensure that the rights and dignity of asylum seekers are protected to ensure justice and compassion.
Image: Cameroon Advocacy Network