Tag: Persecution

Shared Responsibility in Refugee Claims: Balancing Applicant Duty and DOJ Oversight

The Supreme Court has affirmed the importance of shared responsibility between refugee applicants and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the refugee status determination process. While applicants must provide accurate accounts and evidence, the DOJ’s Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit (RSPPU) has a duty to actively assist and evaluate claims. The Court clarified that even if the DOJ-RSPPU falls short in its duties, this does not automatically guarantee refugee status. Each application must still be evaluated on its individual merits, ensuring a balance between providing protection and carefully assessing each case. The Court’s resolution reinforces the need for a thorough and collaborative approach in refugee status determinations.

Seeking Asylum: How Far Should the DOJ Go to Verify Claims of Persecution?

Rehman Sabir sought refuge in the Philippines, claiming religious persecution in Pakistan due to forced conversion to Islam and threats to his life. He argued that the DOJ-RSPPU failed in its duty to properly investigate his claims and gather relevant country of origin information (COI). The central legal question revolved around the extent of the DOJ-RSPPU’s responsibility in assisting asylum seekers to substantiate their claims, and whether a failure in this duty automatically warrants granting refugee status. This case underscores the complexities of balancing the burden of proof on the applicant with the government’s obligation to ensure a fair and thorough evaluation process.

The Supreme Court’s resolution addresses the motion for partial reconsideration filed by Sabir concerning the Court’s earlier decision. The Court acknowledges the evolving legal landscape with the issuance of DOJ Circular No. 024, series of 2022 (2022 Circular), which replaced DOJ Circular No. 058, series of 2012 (2012 Circular). The new circular aims to streamline the status determination procedure for refugees and stateless persons, emphasizing a fair, efficient, and non-adversarial process. It explicitly acknowledges the principle of non-refoulement, prohibiting the return of refugees and asylum seekers to countries where their lives or freedoms are threatened. This principle now codified in the 2022 Circular ensures the Philippines’ commitment to international standards of refugee protection.

The 2022 Circular introduces significant changes, including a clearer articulation of the rights of Persons of Concern (POC) and Applicants. Applicants now have explicitly defined rights, such as access to legal counsel, information about the procedure, and protection from forcible return to a country where they may face persecution. These rights are designed to ensure a fairer and more transparent process for those seeking asylum. The circular also streamlines the application procedure, introducing regular and accelerated processes, and sets specific timelines for decision-making. This aims to improve efficiency and reduce delays in the status determination process.

One of the most pertinent aspects of the 2022 Circular is its emphasis on the shared burden of proof in status determination proceedings. Section 3, Rule IV of the Circular states that while the burden of proof rests on the applicant, the duty to ascertain and evaluate all relevant facts is shared between the applicant and the Protection Officer. This principle is drawn from the UNHCR’s Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and Guidelines on International Protection. The Handbook emphasizes that the examiner must assess the validity of evidence and the credibility of the applicant’s statements, even if the applicant cannot provide documentary proof.

“196. It is a general legal principle that the burden of proof lies on the person submitting a claim. Often, however, an applicant may not be able to support his [or her] statements by documentary or other proof, and cases in which an applicant can provide evidence of all his [or her] statements will be the exception rather than the rule. In most cases a person fleeing from prosecution will have arrived with the barest necessities and very frequently even without personal documents. Thus, while the burden of proof in principle rests on the applicant, the duty to ascertain and evaluate all the relevant facts is shared between the applicant and the examiner.”

The Court stresses that the 2022 Circular applies to all pending cases, and procedural laws may be applied retroactively to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. While the Protection Officer in Sabir’s case failed to fully exercise this shared duty, the Court clarifies that this does not automatically lead to the granting of refugee status. Each case must be determined on its merits, considering the unique circumstances and evidence presented. The Court acknowledges the possibility that some applicants may have left their country in haste and may not have evidence to prove their claims. Language barriers and personality differences can also hinder applicants from fully discussing their allegations.

The Court emphasizes that the determination of refugee status involves two stages: the determination of relevant facts and the application of those facts to the definition of a refugee. The definition hinges on whether the applicant has a “well-founded fear of being persecuted.” This fear has both subjective and objective elements. The subjective element requires an evaluation of the applicant’s statements, personal and family background, and experiences. The objective element involves considering the conditions in the applicant’s country of origin to assess the credibility of the applicant. In this case, the Court found that the relevant facts were not properly examined by the Protection Officer, making it difficult to objectively assess the merits of the application. There were unresolved questions, such as the apparent contradiction in Sabir’s statements regarding his conversion to Islam, which needed clarification.

The Supreme Court reiterated that its previous decision laid out clear guidelines for refugee status determination proceedings. These guidelines include the shared and collaborative burden between the applicant and the Protection Officer, the duty of the Protection Officer to assess the credibility of statements and evidence, and the application of the facts to the definition of a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. This means that the applicant must provide accurate and credible information, while the Protection Officer must assist in explaining and clarifying the claim. Additionally, these guidelines, coupled with the timelines and steps outlined in DOJ Circular No. 024, series of 2022, should guide the DOJ-RSPPU in re-examining Sabir’s application. The court consciously avoided making a factual determination on whether the petitioner met the definition of a refugee due to the DOJ-RSPPU’s shortcomings.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was determining the extent of the DOJ-RSPPU’s responsibility in assisting asylum seekers to substantiate their claims for refugee status, and whether a failure in this duty automatically warrants granting refugee status. The Court ultimately emphasized the importance of a shared responsibility between the applicant and the DOJ-RSPPU.
What is the principle of non-refoulement?	The principle of non-refoulement prohibits States from returning refugees and asylum seekers to countries where their lives or freedoms may be threatened. This principle is now explicitly acknowledged in DOJ Circular No. 024, series of 2022.
What is the shared burden of proof in refugee status determination?	The shared burden of proof means that while the applicant has the primary responsibility to provide accurate and complete information, the DOJ-RSPPU also has a duty to actively assist and evaluate all relevant facts. This acknowledges that applicants may face challenges in gathering evidence and presenting their claims.
What are the two stages in the refugee status determination process?	The two stages are: (1) the determination of the relevant facts of the case, and (2) the application of those facts to the definition of a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. This process involves assessing the credibility of the applicant’s claims and evidence.
What is the meaning of “well-founded fear of being persecuted”?	The phrase refers to the applicant’s fear of persecution, which must be both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. The subjective element involves evaluating the applicant’s statements and experiences, while the objective element involves considering the conditions in the applicant’s country of origin.
What is the effect of the new DOJ Circular No. 024 on pending cases?	The 2022 Circular applies to all pending cases, and its procedural guidelines may be applied retroactively. This ensures that all cases are processed under the updated and streamlined procedures outlined in the new circular.
Can an applicant appeal a decision denying refugee status?	Yes, under the 2022 Circular, a decision or resolution of the RSPPU denying an application or a request for reconsideration is now appealable to the Office of the President. Previously, applicants could only seek judicial review.
What happens if the Protection Officer fails to fulfill their shared duty?	The failure of the Protection Officer to fulfill their shared duty does not automatically mean that the application for refugee status will be approved. The case will be remanded for re-evaluation, with the Protection Officer being directed to properly assist and evaluate the applicant’s claims.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s resolution in the Rehman Sabir case emphasizes the importance of a balanced and thorough approach to refugee status determination. By reiterating the principle of shared responsibility and providing clear guidelines, the Court aims to ensure that deserving individuals receive protection while safeguarding the integrity of the asylum process. The decision ensures the protection of those who genuinely meet the criteria for refugee status.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: REHMAN SABIR, G.R. No. 249387, March 08, 2023

March 8, 2023

The Shared Burden: Defining ‘Well-Founded Fear’ in Philippine Refugee Status Determinations

The Supreme Court partly granted Rehman Sabir’s petition, reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision and setting aside the Department of Justice’s denial of his refugee status. The Court clarified the evidentiary threshold for refugee status determination, emphasizing a ‘reasonable degree’ standard to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. This ruling mandates a more active role for the DOJ in assisting asylum seekers, ensuring a fair and thorough evaluation of their claims, particularly concerning religious persecution. The decision affirms the Philippines’ commitment to international refugee law, balancing humanitarian obligations with the state’s right to manage its borders.

Seeking Sanctuary: How Credible Must the Fear of Religious Persecution Be for Refugee Status?

The determination of refugee status is a complex and sensitive process, requiring a careful balance between a nation’s commitment to international humanitarian law and its sovereign right to control its borders. The Supreme Court’s decision in Rehman Sabir v. Department of Justice-Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit (DOJ-RSPPU), G.R. No. 249387, August 02, 2022, provides critical guidance on this issue, particularly concerning the evidentiary threshold required to establish a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution.

At the heart of this case lies the interpretation of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, to which the Philippines is a signatory. These international instruments define a ‘refugee’ as someone who, “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” The central question is: How ‘well-founded’ must this fear be?

The petitioner, Rehman Sabir, a Pakistani national and Christian, sought refugee status in the Philippines, claiming religious persecution in his home country. He alleged that his father’s conversion to Islam and subsequent pressure from his stepmother and her brother, a Muslim preacher, to convert to Islam, led to threats and a well-founded fear for his life. Sabir claimed that after an incident involving the accidental dropping of the Quran, he was accused of blasphemy and threatened with death, forcing him to flee Pakistan.

The DOJ-RSPPU denied his application, finding that Sabir’s fear was not ‘well-founded’ and questioning the credibility of his claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, leading Sabir to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized the shared and collaborative burden between the applicant and the protection officer in refugee status determination. This means that while the applicant must provide an accurate and credible account of their experiences, the protection officer has a duty to assist in clarifying the claims and gathering supporting evidence.

A critical aspect of the Court’s decision is its articulation of the standard of proof required to establish a ‘well-founded fear.’ The Court explicitly rejected the notion that this standard equates to proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is the standard used in criminal cases. Instead, it held that a ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted’ exists if the applicant can establish, to a reasonable degree, that he or she would have been persecuted had the applicant not left his or her country of origin, or would be persecuted if the applicant returns thereto.

This ‘reasonable degree’ standard aligns with the humanitarian objectives of the Refugee Convention and acknowledges the challenges faced by asylum seekers in providing concrete evidence of persecution. The Court noted that the UNHCR Handbook, while not binding, provides valuable guidance on this matter, stating that the applicant’s fear should be considered well-founded if he or she can establish, to a reasonable degree, that his or her continued stay in his country of origin has become intolerable.

The Court also referenced decisions from other jurisdictions, including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, which have grappled with the interpretation of ‘well-founded fear.’ These cases generally support the idea that persecution need not be a certainty but rather a reasonable possibility. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca held that persecution is a reasonable possibility, so long as an objective situation is established by the evidence.

The Philippine Supreme Court found that the DOJ-RSPPU had failed to adequately consider the subjective and objective elements of Sabir’s claim. The Court criticized the agency’s reliance on a perceived inconsistency in Sabir’s statements regarding whether he was ‘forced’ or ‘persuaded’ to convert to Islam, particularly given Sabir’s limited English proficiency and the lack of an interpreter. The Court emphasized that the DOJ-RSPPU had not made an effort to clarify the potential nuances in Sabir’s language. It further pointed out that even if inconsistencies existed in Sabir’s claims, such inconsistencies may very well be due to the trauma of the events that prompted him to flee his home country.

Furthermore, the Court found that the DOJ-RSPPU’s reliance on the UK Country Guidance and the AK and SK Case was improper. The Court noted that the AK and SK Case involved claimants whose credibility was undermined by fabricated documents, a situation not analogous to Sabir’s case. The Court also observed that the AK and SK Case made an exhaustive consideration of Pakistan’s legal framework which the DOJ-RSPPU failed to do. By relying on the UK Country Guidance, the DOJ-RSPPU, in effect, relied on an assessment of state of affairs that was not applicable to the personal circumstances of Sabir’s case.

In light of these shortcomings, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the DOJ-RSPPU for further proceedings, urging the agency to actively assist Sabir in elucidating his claim. The Court encouraged the reception of further evidence, the conduct of additional interviews, and an in-depth study of country-of-origin information. As such, the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines in refugee status determination proceedings:

1. To discharge the shared and collaborative burden between the applicant and the protection officer: (a) the applicant must provide accurate, full, and credible account or proof in support of his or her claim, and submit all relevant evidence reasonably available; and (b) the protection officer must assist and aid the applicant in explaining, clarifying, and elucidating his or her claim.
2. Notwithstanding the protection officer’s shared burden, it is also the duty of the protection officer to assess the credibility of the statements of the applicant and the evidence on record.
3. The facts, as ascertained, should be applied to the definition of a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, considering the subjective and objective elements of the phrase “well-founded fear”. The protection officer should determine if the applicant has established, to a reasonable degree, that he or she would have been persecuted had the applicant not: left his or her country of origin or would be persecuted if the applicant returns thereto.

The Court, therefore, established a framework for evaluating refugee claims, emphasizing the need for a thorough, individualized assessment that considers both the applicant’s subjective fear and the objective conditions in their country of origin. This decision affirms the Philippines’ commitment to protecting refugees and ensuring that their claims are given fair and meaningful consideration.

FAQs

What is the central issue in this case?	The key issue is determining the proper evidentiary standard for establishing a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ in refugee status determinations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. The court needed to clarify how much proof is necessary for an asylum seeker to demonstrate they face persecution.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court clarified that a ‘reasonable degree’ of evidence is sufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, rather than requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The case was remanded to the DOJ for further proceedings consistent with this standard.
What is the shared burden in refugee cases?	The ‘shared burden’ means the asylum seeker must provide an accurate account, while the protection officer must actively assist in clarifying claims and gathering evidence. The protection officer must also weigh the credibility of the asylum seeker against evidence from country of origin resources.
Why was the DOJ-RSPPU’s decision overturned?	The DOJ-RSPPU’s decision was overturned because it questioned the credibility of asylum seekers, it relied on an inconsistency in the applicant’s statements without proper clarification and improperly relied on foreign resources without contextualizing them to the facts of the case. The decisions also failed to assist in clarifying his claims in support of application.
What is the ‘reasonable degree’ standard?	The ‘reasonable degree’ standard means that an applicant must show a credible possibility of persecution if they return to their home country. The reasonable degree is based on a subjective assessment and objective contextualizaton to the evidence presented.
What factors should the DOJ-RSPPU consider on remand?	The DOJ-RSPPU should receive additional evidence, conduct more interviews, thoroughly study country-of-origin information, and carefully assess the petitioner’s claims. They should also consider possible language barrier and provide sufficient assitance.
Does the ruling guarantee refugee status for the petitioner?	No, the ruling does not guarantee refugee status, but it ensures a fairer evaluation of the application. The Court wants the DOJ-RSPPU to assess the claim again under the correct legal standard and procedural framework.
What are the implications for future refugee claims in the Philippines?	This decision provides a clearer framework for assessing refugee claims. The ruling emphasizes the DOJ’s duty to assist asylum seekers and use a humanitarian lens and a more appropriate evidence threshold, potentially leading to more successful applications.

This Supreme Court ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the Philippines’ commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals fleeing persecution. By clarifying the standard of proof and emphasizing the shared burden of responsibility, the Court has created a more equitable and compassionate framework for refugee status determinations. This decision reinforces the importance of a thorough and individualized assessment of each case, ensuring that those who genuinely fear persecution receive the protection they deserve.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

August 2, 2022