A Neglected Refuge - American Asylum Policies and the Systemic Exclusion of Disability-Based Persecution

Systemic inequities and limited case law create significant barriers for individuals seeking asylum in the United States due to disability-based persecution. This thesis examines how such persecution persists, how courts receive these cases, and how policy reforms could improve asylum protections. Using grounded theory, thirty-six disability-based persecution cases were analyzed. Interviews with experts were conducted to identify themes and policy recommendations. Ten cases were granted review. In two cases, Circuit Courts found claims of torture due to disability to be potentially valid under the Convention Against Torture. In another two cases, Circuit Courts found that permanent disability sustained as a child could amount to past persecution. In two cases, a loss of medication due to deportation could be considered evidence of “serious harm” which could amount to a future persecution claim that warrants asylum relief. In the four interviews conducted via Zoom, experts mentioned circuit inconsistencies, a lack of accommodations, general qualification barriers, and deficient precedent factors that hinder applicants. Experts explained that the particular social group designation, a lack of documentation on country conditions, credibility issues of applicant testimony, and higher standards of future persecution risk than legally necessary were all barriers to clear and convincing arguments. To remedy these overwhelming barriers to asylum for those facing disability-based persecution, recommendations are made to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, expand the refugee definition, gather information immigration court cases to understand patterns, and increase reporting on disability in country condition reports. Recommendations were analyzed for their impact and viability in the current political context in order to arrive at which reforms are most possible and meaningful.