An Analysis of The Immigration Case of Rreshpja V. Gonzales

Images of deaths, persecution, fear, being members of specific minority groups and raiding of humanity has been the cause of the ongoing immigration. The term refugee is used to describe a person who has been forced to flee his country of origin as a result of political crisis natural disaster, or extreme persecution and other violation of basic human rights forcing someone to seek refuge in another country. In most instances, asylum seekers are always treated harshly in different countries that they seek refuge, due to the threat of straining the resources available in the host country. For instance, the refugees who flee to economically strapped nations like Jordan and Germany find it difficult to have peace of mind even though usually the reason they are fleeing to those countries is because seeking for peace and sanctuary from whatever they are escaping. With that being said, the case of Rreshpja V. Gonzales holds significance as it faced one of the world’s most dire problems: immigration. In this case, Rreshpja, the defendant faced immigration charges for the alleged fear of persecution in her home country Albania.

International law requires asylum seekers to provide beyond reasonable doubt that they are facing threats or persecution their home country falling under the categories of: religion, politics, nationality, or race. Rreshpja acquired a fraud visa to gain admission to the United States at Michigan State University. Additionally, her non-immigrant Visa was obtained through fraud thus leading to the denial of the application of asylum. According to Perkovic, an “asylum seeker must portray that they are facing persecution with genuine subjection and must demonstrate an objectively reasonable purpose.” Rreshpja was supposed to prove that she would be persecuted in case she would be forced to return to Albania, her home country. She was required to produce an realistic situation for which her fear was based. The social group that Rreshpja outlined portrayed that it did not qualify to be termed as a target group for persecution. The international law requires a social group to be people who have a standard, immutable characteristic.

The case of Rreshpja is complicated since she failed to explicitly state that she was persecuted because she was being a member of a particular social group. Even though her reasons that all the young Albanian women are subject to force prostitution seems to be a reasonable fact but the international law based on the point connected to the persecution of a given social group. The case of Rreshpia does not constitute a social group in line with the requirements of INA. The first reason is that almost all the appropriate decisions made have shown to reject generalized and classification of asylums. For instance, the case of the Jamaican groups, who wanted to be taken as asylum refugees because they claimed to be mentally ill individuals, was denied due to lack of connection to the international immigration laws.

Even though there were issues relating Rreshpja’s case to the self-proclaimed social group, she cited Mohammed v. Gonzales case to support her argument that social groups can be defined in different dimensions. The case offered a chance for the full explanation of the social groups that are supposed to be protected by asylum laws. In Mohammed v. Gonzales’ case, the Ninth circuit outlined that female genital mutilation is taken as persecution and accounts for it to be performed on particular social group under siege. Since the Circuit came to an agreement that a social group can be taken as Somalian females, the case of Rreshpja could not be taken to be a given social group under threat of subjection into prostitution. Additionally, after the court analyzed the case of female genital mutilation and realized that it was a cultural practice, it had to consider the case to be part of the social groups that needs protection by international immigration laws. For that matter, there were reasons beyond doubt to accept Somali women in the United States as asylums.

However, Rreshpja did not present any evidence that she was a victim of a practice that forced young women to enter into prostitution in Albania. The second reason is that a social group cannot be defined with the fact that the group suffers persecution. Rreshpja did not outline any bounding factor that could prove that the society had a given reaction to the persecutors which could be a touchstone for defining a social group. Her case tried to insinuate that any attractive woman in Albania could qualify for asylum in the United States if her claim could be accepted. For that matter, attractiveness and the value of beauty were taken to be a subjective criterion that could not allow the court to grant her a chance of being an asylum refugee in the United States.

Rreshpja argued that her case needed protection by granting her asylum in the United States to assist future persecution that needed a humanitarian grant of asylum. The challenge that Rreshpja was facing is that she failed to provide compelling reasons that prevented her from returning to Albania. She should have provided the severity of the incident, and she should have proven that she had reasons beyond doubt, as stated above, that she could be abducted and subjected to prostitution. Other cases made the court conclude that Rreshpja was making her way into the United States without any compelling reasons for her alleged subjection into prostitution. According to the decision, the respondent had proved to have suffered past persecution. The case portrayed that the presumption of future abuse recorded had to be invalidated. According to similar cases, the asylum seekers have been required to provide evidence that they are victims of current or future persecution.

According to international immigration laws, an individual is eligible for withholding the set removal in regards to INA if the person provides reasons for protecting their lives from threats due to membership of a particular social group. For that matter, the court’s decision to withhold removal is based on the provision of a clear probability of persecution. According to Cardoza v. Fonseca’s case, Rreshpja did not satisfy the court’s need for a clear likelihood for persecution thus she could not be able to provide stringent standards for withholding her deportation. The case was mindful of the fact that her reasons were subjective since any beautiful lady from Albania could seek asylum in the United States based on the court’s decision to withhold her deportation back to Albania.

She failed to provide proper evidence that her removal and deportation could result in torture and persecution. Additionally, she had obtained a visa using fraudulent acts that provided reasons that she had planned to stay in the US as an illegal asylum. To be accepted as an asylum and to prevent her removal, Rreshpja was supposed to outline her situation to be connected to torture which is defined as an act which could subject her to severe pain, suffering, mental or physical anguish. She had no proof of her claims that she was facing the trouble of being subjected to prostitution. No single confession could enable her requests to be accepted by the United States law enforcement agencies. No third party had been passed through the same alleged threatening situation, and there was no discrimination ever recorded in line with Rreshpja’s case. No one had suffered under the fear that Rreshpja outlined as she pleaded for the withholding of her removal from the United States.

According to Ali v. Reno 237, Rreshpja was ineligible for relief by CAT. The IJ discovered that the government officials in her country did not find any compelling reasons to convict the individual that Rreshpja claimed to have subjected her to threats of abducting her and subjecting her to prostitution. The term acquiescence is used to mean that there is a requirement by a public official prior to the activity to have confirmed the torture that Rreshpja claimed. There was no awareness of such events in Albania that could enable Rreshpja to be considered as an asylum and to enable her to be allowed in the US under the title asylum seeker.

Another fact that denied her chance of getting asylum in the United States is that she failed to provide adequate information that could lead to the conviction of the person that she outlined that he had threatened of abducting her. For that matter, her allegations that the police ignored her request for protection against abduction were lame to grant her protection by CAT. Another reason is that the Albanian government had set up mechanisms for preventing and solving the issue of human trafficking. It was discovered that the Albanian government was severely punishing the individuals who involved themselves in aspects that promoted human smuggling thus providing more reason for her asylum to be denied. All police officers who encouraged human trafficking were being convicted thus the case of Rreshpja could not fully attract protection according to CAT.

Rreshpja did not provide reasons that could connect the Albanian government to human trafficking. It is required under CAT protection that the asylum seekers should be people from societies that promote persecution. Consequently, the failure of Rreshpja to provide reasons for her to be granted a chance to be an asylum failed to be considered.

The claims by Rreshpja that the BIA concluded on her verdict without basing on the majority opinion was not achieved thus her appeal led to the confirmation that BIA’s summary-affirmation-without-opinion procedure was just right and morally acceptable. Rreshpja did not seek asylum on humanitarian grounds. Therefore, the IJ contention before BIA issued an ethically right opinion according to her case. The BIA could not have corrected any error that Rreshpja claimed thus her case was hard and determined according to the summary of events and issues that she was facing and anticipating to have been set upon her. It was accepted by the international immigration laws to be allowed a single BIA member to authorize and affirm the IJ’s decision without necessarily stating the basis for the affirmative action’s. The affirmance indicated that the IJ had made a right decision of Rreshpja’s case and had affirmed that no error needed to be corrected concerning the definition of social groups that should be in the category of asylum seekers.

Rreshpja’s case was not heard according to the need to be free from gendered violence. She should have promoted her necessity for protection and asylum, and declared it as a human rights, not a “what if” situation. For that matter, the BIA was made to work concerning the process of protecting the rights of asylums. Rreshpja’s case did not offer reasons that could let her be considered as an asylum in the United States with the fact that her situation did not portray her to be a member of endangered social groups, such as those in danger of female mutilation. Her need for protection could be well solved by her country of origin, as stated above, than seeking for asylum in the United States. The intent to appeal was not considered in the case, therefore Rreshpja was denied a chance to be withheld from deportation. According to the description of the court concerning the decisions made by IJ and BIA, the CAP could not protect Rreshpja from deportation so she had to be deported immediately from the United States according to the set international immigration laws.

If the claims that Rreshpja outlined were valid, then the international laws should be reviewed to avoid focusing on the global human rights history but rather consider one’s case individually. The claims that Rreshpja outlined might be true since the Albanian government had not provided reasons beyond doubt that there were no cases of persecution and human trafficking that were promoted by the actions of the police. Especially since, as stated above they had set up mechanisms for preventing and solving the issue of human trafficking. Therefore, insinuating and recognizing the presence of human trafficking. The right of an individual to be free from violence cannot be connected to the fact that there should be reasons that relate the individual to violence. Rreshpja’s case was morally not right since her claims could have been right since Albania was dealing with cases whereby the police engaged in practices that promoted human trafficking. Rreshpja could be a prospective target for human trafficking which made her seek refuge in the United States after her case was flagged down due to lack of enough evidence as the law enforcement agencies outlined.