Russia-Ukraine War: Effects on Gymn World

[JaJa]

Yes. But if I were an ICE lawyer opposing their claim I would focus on the issue of fraud. Is there any history this person has that makes it credible that they really held these positions, as opposed to they waited til they were safely out of country and then made the statements not because they believe it but because they wanted some basis to get a path to U.S. citizenship. It would honestly be a long shot

 

[MaryClare]

I believe that photo is from Dubai earlier this year. Her Instagram stories in last couple of days looks like she’s in Moscow.

But what actually do you expect us to do? Some of ordinary life goes on, much of it is changed due to the sanctions and peoples uncertainty

 

[JaJa]

But what actually do you expect us to do? Some of ordinary life goes on, much of it is changed due to the sanctions and peoples uncertainty

Agreed.

 

[MaryClare]

Even prior to all this, it was not easy for Russians to get US visas, I’m guessing for that reason.

Within gymnastics there has been issues of coaches not getting visas to attend minor competitions such as WOGA classic

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

You have to show that you have a well founded fear of persecution.

The thing is, especially for someone reasonably high profile which generally athletes will be, the fact that they’ve attempted to seek asylum in the first place could well put them at risk. Even if a particular athlete isn’t at risk of persecution simply by not showing active support for the government whilst in Russia, once they’ve left and sought protection it’s a different situation. That is the argument I’d be making. And yes you can use activity that you’ve engaged in since fleeing as part of your asylum case. It’s called sur place claims.

 

[JaJa]

Even prior to all this, it was not easy for Russians to get US visas, I’m guessing for that reason.

Absolutely that’s why. One reason why anyway. There is a huge amount of fraud in the asylum process

 

[JaJa]

the fact that they’ve attempted to seek asylum in the first place could well put them at risk. Even if a particular athlete isn’t at risk of persecution simply by not showing active support for the government whilst in Russia, once they’ve left and sought protection it’s a different situation. That is the argument I’d be making.

I don’t know anything about the system in the UK but I have done a slew of Asylum cases Pro Bono in the U.S. fear of future persecution is always difficult to show. And having applied for Asylum is just not a basis for that fear, that would be true anywhere because it’s not a part of the Refugee convention all Asylum laws are based on. It’s not an expression of a political opinion to make an application for asylum. Nor would not having spoken up in support of your government, make any sort of compelling case. I would probably tell someone who had nothing stronger, not to even bother filing. I mean refusal to speak in support of the government if asked, yes. But just never having spoken in support? Really weak. I mean not impossible, but really weak.

 

[JaJa]

Even prior to all this, it was not easy for Russians to get US visas, I’m guessing for that reason

This is neither here nor there, but one of the top Asylum lawyers in NY who does Russian cases was being prosecuted for fraud in those cases recently. Not sure what happened with her case, I never followed it, but there is a ton of fraud.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

I don’t know anything about the US system at all. The way it works in the UK is that there are policies and set case law for the most common types of claim. There isn’t anything up to date for Russia at the moment obviously (there are significant delays in the asylum system too) but if there’s a dispute we get expert evidence. Usually goes to appeal. It’s absolutely possible though to argue that merely having fled and applied for asylum would be seen as disloyalty to the state you’ve come from as and when they find out. That gets us into imputed political opinion territory, which would give you a Convention reason. You may for example have heard of the Syrian regime abusing failed asylum seekers who’ve been returned.

 

[JaJa]

. It’s absolutely possible though to argue that merely having fled and applied for asylum would be seen as disloyalty to the state you’ve come from as and when they find out.

How could that possibly work as a claim? It would mean every applicant for asylum had a basis for asylum. I would give it a zero chance for working. You really have to have a legitimate claim.

 

[JaJa]

Majority of the thousands of people arrested for protesting have been kept in a cell for a few hours then released to await some sort of trial. So probably they could claim asylum

Absolutely they have a basis for a claim. And in light of the situation in Russia now a very good one.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

Well no, not every asylum applicant. You’d have to be able to show not only that the relevant regime would be aware but the person in their particular circumstances would also be at risk of persecution because of it on return. But the situation in Syria for example for returned asylum seekers is one reason why the UK, despite clearly wanting to, isn’t trying to return people. There was an attempt made recently but they withdrew the decision, there’s a bit more information on the case here.

UK Home Office backs down on Syrian asylum seeker's case

In December, the Home Office sent a rejection letter to a Syrian asylum seeker, saying it was safe for him to return. That would have been first case of its kind in the UK. Now, authorities appear to have backtracked.

www.infomigrants.net

These are arguments that UK asylum lawyers representing Syrian citizens are making now, as we speak.

 

[JaJa]

This guy had a VERY strong claim for political opinion asylum . He refused to be drafted into the army . That will get you killed in Assad’s Syria. That his lawyer threw in the line about just applying for Asylum puts him at risk has nothing to do with the actual basis for the claim. Its a throw away line, we make them all the time, but its not the basis for an Asylum claim anywhere in the world.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

Mmm he does indeed, which is why it was so odd that HO chose to argue he could safely return initially. That’s not what they’ve done with Syrian cases previously. If I were them and looking for someone to try and introduce the concept that returning some asylum seekers to Syria was safe, he’s not the one I’d have gone for.

But as I said, there are British asylum lawyers making this argument on behalf of Syrian clients now, because of the risk to returned failed asylum seekers there and the abuses that the state is inflicting, and it includes abuses based simply on imputed political opinion. It’s happening, the cases exist.

 

[JaJa]

Mmm he does indeed, which is why it was so odd that HO chose to argue he could safely return initially.

I hear you and unfortunately its not uncommon or odd. VERY legitimate cases get denied very routinely here and I am sure in the U.K. too for various reasons. One is just to keep the sheer numbers down. But often its political/strategic. And also quite often its fear of allowing people who, while they may have actual good asylum claims, and while they can not be directly tied to terrorism, may have some ulterior motives or may be a problem down the road.

 

[JaJa]

But as I said, there are British asylum lawyers making this argument on behalf of Syrian clients now, because of the risk to returned failed asylum seekers there and the abuses that the state is inflicting, and it includes abuses based simply on imputed political opinion. It’s happening, the cases exist

It can not be that their only claim is that they applied for asylum though. There have to be solid bases for the claims. Imputed political opinion is a basis for an asylum claim. But you can not make an imputed political opinion claim based simply on the fact that someone applied for asylum. That lawyers are adding that argument has nothing to do with the actual underlying basis for a claim. I have thrown all sorts of things in at trials which really have nothing to do with the actual legal basis for whatever the claim is. But at the end of the day you have to have some sort of legitimate claim and “I applied for asylum so they will impute a political opinion” just does not cut it.

 

[MaryClare]

In Britain they tend to let anyone in, take years to hear the case. Then there are multiple appeals. Then they don’t actually deport anyone anyway. So yeah, they let anyone in.

 

[JaJa]

well, not deporting someone is different from granting asylum. Asylum is a path to citizenship, not just just a withholding of removal.

The process takes years in the U.S. too. Lets say you come here from Russia on a travel visa and overstay and then within one year file an asylum application. It will take a while – at this point maybe 2 years – to even get your Asylum Interview. Lets say you are denied by the Asylum Officer. You then get a trial which at this point will easily take 4 more years to happen (immigration courts were closed for a very long time because of covid and now are functioning but barely). Lets say you lose that trial. You can appeal to the BIA and then to the federal district court. So it can easily be a 10 year thing before you are deported. Covid took a slow, overworked system and made it much slower and so backlogged that its ridiculous.

 

[MaryClare]

Yes, that’s pretty similar to the process in the UK, except most applicants are not yet in the country. Which should make things much more straightforward in rejecting spurious claims. But it does not

 

[JaJa]

Yes, that’s pretty similar to the process in the UK, except most applicants are not yet in the country.

If they are not in the country its not an asylum claim. Its a refuge claim. The law is the same but they are making their applications from outside the country they are petitioning for asylum to