US Halts Fake Refugee “Domestic Violence” and “Gang Crime” Excuse Invasion

The Trump administration will stop granting “asylum” to invaders claiming that they have been “victims of domestic abuse” and “gang violence” in a ruling which is going to halt applications by tens of thousands of Central and South Americans.

Fake refugees demand entry into the US on the Meixcan-US border.

In a binding ruling issued to courts by US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an earlier ruling which granted asylum to a South American invader on the basis of “protection from domestic violence” was overturned and rules for determining eligibility for asylum in the US were spelled out in detail.

According to the statement, an applicant seeking to establish persecution on account of membership in a “particular social group” must demonstrate:

(1) membership in a group, which is composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, is defined with particularity, and is socially distinct within the society in question; and

(2) that membership in the group is a central reason for her persecution. When the alleged persecutor is someone unaffiliated with the government, the applicant must also show that her home government is unwilling or unable to protect her.

(3) An asylum applicant has the burden of showing her eligibility for asylum. The applicant must present facts that establish each element of the standard, and the asylum officer, immigration judge, or the Board has the duty to determine whether those facts satisfy all of those elements.

(4) If an asylum application is fatally flawed in one respect, an immigration judge or the Board need not examine the remaining elements of the asylum claim.

(5) The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.

(6) To be cognizable, a particular social group must exist independently of the harm asserted in an application for asylum.

(7) An applicant seeking to establish persecution based on violent conduct of a private actor must show more than the government’s difficulty controlling private behavior. The applicant must show that the government condoned the private actions or demonstrated an inability to protect the victims.

 (8) An applicant seeking asylum based on membership in a particular social group must clearly indicate on the record the exact delineation of any proposed particular social group.

(9) The Board, immigration judges, and all asylum officers must consider, consistent with the regulations, whether internal relocation in the alien’s home country presents a reasonable alternative before granting asylum.

This means that survivors of such “private” crimes are no longer eligible for asylum in the US, a move which will block tens of thousands of fake refugees from Central and South America from gaining entry into Ameroca.

In a speech earlier on Monday, before he released the directive, Sessions said that “asylum was never meant to alleviate all problems — even all serious problems — that people face every day all over the world.”

This is a complete switch from the 2014 Obama-era directive that did grant asylum to victims of domestic violence, with some stipulations.

Under the Obama-era directive that Sessions overruled on Monday, domestic violence victims were granted asylum if the countries and societies they were migrating from didn’t recognize the need to protect them.

In contrast, Sessions’ directive states that “the mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.”

The attorney general has the power to issue decisions that serve as binding precedents for immigration judges. In this instance, he used a case involving a victim of domestic violence from El Salvador to rule that survivors of such “private” crimes are not eligible for asylum under U.S. law.

The woman, referred to in immigration court as A.B., for her initials, said she was fleeing years of physical and emotional abuse by an ex-husband who had raped her.

An immigration judge had denied her asylum claim, but the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled in her favor in 2016, saying the Salvadoran government had shown it was incapable of protecting her, even after she moved to another part of the country.

Session said that the “ruling restores sound principles of asylum and long-standing principles of immigration law.”

Under current US immigration law, the attorney general’s rulings are binding on immigration judges unless overturned by a federal appellate court.

Recommended For You


  1. Wow. I didn’t think I could be shocked by the open door immigration policies of western countries anymore, but claiming asylum for domestic abuse?! How much further can they lower the bar? If your husband is abusing you, don’t get another country; get another husband!

  2. I always suspected – if western citizens only knew what really went on in their Immi Depts to get the planet’s happy wanderers into their lands,,,, they’d die with their legs in the air . As they say in the bush. eg 20 yrs ago, Oz listed a ‘shortage in chef’s apprentices and kitchen hands ‘ there wasn’t one. It was just a clever way for all the third world aussie migrant restaurants to bring in their friends and family.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.