Two Central American asylum cases have recently hit the wires. In the first case, a refugee from El Salvador,
Jose Figueroa, was denied asylum in Canada because he was once a member of the FMLN's political wing. The Immigration and Refugee Board ruled that
Figueroa was "inadmissible on security grounds for having been a member of a particular type of organization … that is, an organization that is engaged in terrorism."
Several professors and human rights advocates are outraged that the board concluded that membership in the FMLN (even if he was only doing political work) was the equivalent of being a member of a terrorist organization. The judge highlighted the fact that the ERP (and therefore the entire FMLN) had engaged in systematic attacks against mayors opposed to the FMLN project. The attacks upon unarmed civilian mayors constituted terrorism. The judge concluded that even though the government clearly had engaged in more acts of terrorism than the FMLN, the FMLN should still be characterized as an organization that engaged in terrorism.
It's interesting to read the
ruling and how a person unfamiliar with the events in El Salvador interprets the country's history.
In the second case, a Guatemalan man living in San Francisco was denied asylum and ordered out of the United States within two weeks. While other members of
Mario Mendoza's family were granted asylum, he was denied because he failed to show up at an immigration hearing in 2002. According to Mendoza,
who was 14 at the time, [he] says he didn't appear at the hearing -- because of a language barrier. He's Mayan and didn't speak English or Spanish. His lawyer also claims Mendoza never received any written notice.
Neither news story speaks to the credibility of the asylum seeker's case. Why were they seeking asylum in the first place? Who persecuted them and who would persecute them should they be repatriated?
In the Canadian ruling, the judge seems sympathetic to the Petitioner. However, his prior membership in a terrorist organization prevented him from being granting asylum regarless of the merits of his case. In the US case, the lawyer (probably for the Petitioner) believes that the ruling might be overturned because the government failed to properly communicate with the applicant in 2002.