百家争鸣
移民秘笈
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[移民秘笈]->[成功的庇护反驳信:移民官改变拒绝的决定]
移民秘笈
·康州夫妇被迫递解的原因分析和可能解决办法
·庇护过程中的结婚问题
·关于最新庇护面谈政策的工卡问题
·移民局最新的优先面谈政策无济于事
·庇护优先面谈政策不是针对中国人
·“10年绿卡”能使康州华裔夫妇免遭递解?
·纪先生被ICE抓捕的可能原因分析
·庇护法庭失败的主要原因——“不可信”详解
·庇护申请高度雷同——移民法庭开始调查庇护欺诈
·刚刚面谈批准的庇护案例分析
·刚刚面谈批准的庇护案例分析
·庇护身份被取消雷同模板害死人:附移民局的分析点评
·ICE扫荡南加 为何抓合法庇护华人
·政治庇护的误区之一:一定要受到过迫害
·政治庇护误区之二:超过一年不能办理
·政治庇护误区之三:面谈不需要证据
·政治庇护面谈的另外几个“悟区”
·公民合法华裔配偶 为何被ICE逮捕
·证明信被移民局鉴定为造假:最终获得庇护
·没有面谈的华人愿意站出来“维权”吗?
·关于近期L1申请的补件说明
·I-140批准后绿卡申请要注意的一个问题
·一个案例可以学到的教训
·美国起诉加州——三项有关非法移民的州法违宪
·庇护指南及案例分析 第一章:庇护法律概要
·庇护指南及案例分析 第二章 谁可以申请
·庇护指南和案例分析 第三章真实合理的恐惧
·庇护指南及案例分析第四章 过去的迫害
·留学生申请庇护批准率为什么很高?
·L1签证成功上诉——移民局也常犯错误
·L1签证成功上诉——移民局也常犯错误
·安徽、河南 、新疆等地再次迫害“呼喊派”基督徒
·所谓“司法部取消庇护申请者工卡”的假新闻分析
·合法学生申请庇护失败会被递解吗
·庇护面谈的前半部分注意事项
·绿卡申请迟迟不批怎么办?起诉移民局
·政治观点申请人如何面谈就获得批准
·政治观点申请人如何面谈就获得批准
·“红通”被美国移民执法机构抓捕后如何保释
·庇护面谈官是如何识破虚假申请的
·“过去的迫害”申请庇护也可能被拒绝
·最新的诉讼让超过一年的庇护申请人获利
·没有律师的庇护者如何上庭?斯坦福法学院给出详细指南
·移民法庭自我辩护系列之一:递解一年后重新开案
·成功的庇护反驳信:移民官改变拒绝的决定
·公宁的言论是“煽动恐怖主义”还是言论自由?
·为什么庇护面谈后迟迟没有结果
·庇护面谈介绍(之一)
·再次撰写了”反驳信“——对政治观点申请人的建议
·庇护等待多年没有面谈:我们帮你!
·庇护等待多年没有面谈:我们帮你!
·本人在此在第九巡回法庭获胜
欢迎在此做广告
成功的庇护反驳信:移民官改变拒绝的决定

   2018年9月,经朋友介绍,一位在旧金山的王先生找到我。他的庇护面谈没有比准,收到了移民官来的一封“打算拒绝信”。给他16天时间写反驳信。

   

   成功的庇护反驳信:移民官改变拒绝的决定

   

   

   我看了这个移民官的信以后,告诉他,我认为可以反驳成功。于是我开始帮他准备反驳信。并且告诉他,虽然我不能保证100%成功,但是从我对法律和相关案例的理解,应该会成功,让他静等佳音。

   

   于是我花了一个晚上的时间,查找有利的案例,并且加班把反驳信准备好。

   

   这里简单介绍一下这个案例:

   

   王先生在国内就是基督徒。他所在的教会被政府查封。移民官相信他所说的都是事实,但是认为他可以离开这个教会,到另外的城市居住,因此他可以在其他城市找到安全的地方居住,不符合庇护的要求。

   

   因此,造成他庇护没有批准的原因是:relocation.也就是说,如果在你的国家,你可以搬迁到其他地方居住,并且不会受到威胁,那么你是不符合庇护申请的要求的。

   

   很显然,从法律和现有的案例分析来看,移民官是有法律和事实的错误。于是我进行了有理(有法里条文分析和案例分析)有据(有更多的相关的新闻报道)的反驳。凌晨时分,窗外的天空已经有了鱼肚白,我完成了反驳信。

   

   经过3个月的等待,2019年的1月,已经从旧金山搬到洛杉矶的王先生全家终于收到了旧金山移民局的挂号信:移民官改变了最初的拒绝的决定,批准了王先生全家的庇护。

   

   成功的庇护反驳信:移民官改变拒绝的决定

   

   附件是反驳信全文,我删除了相关的个人信息,供有心人参考。

   

   那个一直在网上黑我的网友,请你能不能就此反驳信进行批判一番?

   

   

   

   

   

   Attention: File Number AXXX-XXX-1275

   Rebuttal –ZSFXXX

   

   Name: XXXXX WANG

   Date: Sept. 21 2018

   

   Dear Immigration Officer,

   

   Thanks for you to give me a chance to write this rebuttal letter. I am happy to read in your notice that “your testimony was sufficiently detailed, consistent, and plausible. Considering the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors, your testimony is found credible. ” “The acts you described are cumulatively serious enough to rise to the level of persecution on account of your religion”; “it is reasonable to conclude that the harm you testified to is sufficiently serious to rise to the level of persecution”; “Therefore, you have established that you are a refugee”; “Having established that you experienced past persecution, you are entitled to a presumption that you have a well-founded fear on the same basis”.

   

   But you found that I am not eligible for asylum status because “a preponderance of the evidence establishes that you could avoid future persecution by relocating within your home country”, and “a preponderance of the evidence also establishes that internal relocation is reasonable”, “accordingly the Service would find that you could avoid future persecution by relocating, and it is reasonable for you to do. The presumption of well-founded fear based on your Christian religion has been rebutted”.

   

   I prepare the rebuttal letter focusing on the only issue you raised in the Letter of Notice of Intent to Deny: Relocation.

   

   

   Issue: Relocation

   

   1.Rule:

   

   An applicant who has been found to have established such past persecution shall also be presumed to have a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of the original claim. That presumption may be rebutted if an asylum officer or immigration judge makes the finding that “the applicant could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant's country of nationality or, if stateless, another part of the applicant's country of last habitual residence, and under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so”.

   (8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), (b)(1)(ii)).

   

   2.Country Report:

   

   In proving the above finding, the Service cited Country Conditions reports by United Kingdom and Human Rights Report on China by U.S. Department of State.

   

   (i): State Department Country Report Not Sufficient:

   

   But where past persecution has been established, generalized information from a State Department report on country conditions is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of future persecution. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (Guatemala). “State Department report on country conditions, standing alone, is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of future persecution”See Kamalyan v. Holder, 620 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010)

   

   (ii): Specific Country Report on Freedom of Religion:

   

   But in the Country Reports on Human Rights, when discussing the freedom of religion, it refers to another specific country report: “See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.”

   

   In the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report on China(2017), just on the first page, it describes that “The government continued to exercise control over religion and restrict the activities and personal freedom of religious adherents when the government perceived these as threatening state or Chinese Communist Party (CCP) interests, according to nongovernmental organization (NGO) and international media reports. Only religious groups belonging to one of the five state-sanctioned “patriotic religious associations” (Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Catholic, and Protestant) are permitted to register with the government and officially permitted to hold worship services. There continued to be reports the government tortured, physically abused, arrested, detained, sentenced to prison, or harassed adherents of both registered and unregistered religious groups for activities related to their religious beliefs and practices, including members of unregistered Christian churches (also known as “house churches”).” (Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report on China(2017))

   

    (iii): New Evidence Proving Worse Country Conditions and No Better Location in China:

   

   Because the Country Report is not sufficient, attached to this rebuttal letter, I also submitted recent news reports on persecution of Christian in China to prove that the country conditions become worse and worse; the persecution is all over the country and there is no better location in China for me to move and feel safe and free to practice my Christian belief. (See Exhibit 1-10)

   

   3.Persecutor is Chinese Government:

   

   While discussing Government Practices, the report said in summary that “throughout the country, there continued to be reports of deaths in detention of religious adherents as well as reports the government physically abused, detained, arrested, tortured, sentenced to prison, or harassed adherents of both registered and unregistered religious groups for activities related to their religious beliefs and practices. Religious affairs officials and security organs scrutinized and restricted the religious activities of registered and unregistered religious groups, including assembling for religious worship, expressing religious beliefs in public and in private, teaching youth, and publishing religious texts.” Id.

   

   According to the Report, the persecution of unregistered Christian in China happened in the whole country and the persecutor is the government itself.

   

   

   4.Relocation Not Reasonable:

   

   Where the persecutor is the government, “[i]t has never been thought that there are safe places within a nation”for the applicant to return. Singh v. Moschorak, 53 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 1995). “In cases in which the persecutor is a government or is government-sponsored, or the applicant has established persecution in the past, it shall be presumed that internal relocation would not be reasonable, unless the Service establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii).

   

   5.Misunderstandings in the Letter and My Statement:

   

But in your letter, in order to prove the relocation is reasonable, you said that “record indicates that you have attended two other Christian churches in the US、、. and your attendance at these new churches have restored you spiritually”. Firstly, it is true I can relocate by attending Christian churches in the US without any fear because the US Constitution protects freedom of religion; and secondly I can restore myself spiritually because the church’s religious activities are totally free but not like the “legal registered church” controlled and monitored by Communist Party which is atheist. Just as the Service said in the letter, “ your fear that if you return to China, you will continue to live under the same threats and you will not be permitted to worship at the Beijing xxxx Church.” I have only two choices: give up my Christian belief for exchange of safety, which I will never consider; or attend the Communist Party’s church which is not true church because the church is not follow my Lord Jesus but Communist Party’s leader Xi Jinping. Recently the officially registered church started to raise the Chinese Natioanl flag, post Communist Party Leader Xi Jinping’s portrait in the church” (See Exhibit 3: China Tells Christians to Replace Images of Jesus with Communist President)

[下一页]
blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场