Political Asylum

Protest as an Expression of Political Opinion

Protest and other forms of political speech are arguably the most straightforward of all political acts and are expressly protected under customary international law. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”  Article 20 states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association,” and that “No one may be compelled to belong to an association.” 

Consequently, fear of persecution for exercising those rights is a well-established ground for asylum in the United States.  See e.g. Zhiqiang Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1018-19 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Perhaps a gathering without a permit disturbs the order of society, but it is hardly an act against the ruling party unless it is construed as a political protest. Even though there might have been multiple motivations for the government's mistreatment . . . one of the central reasons . . . was because of a protected ground—his expression of a political opinion, actual or imputed.”), abrogated by Garland v. Ming Dai, 593 U.S. 357, 141 S. Ct. 1669, 210 L. Ed. 2d 11 (2021); Li Wu Lin v. I.N.S., 238 F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2001) (asylum granted based on participation in 1989 pro-democracy, Tiananmen Square protests in the People’s Republic of China).

Resistance to Corruption Can Constitute a Political Opinion.

“[O]pposition to corruption may contain a political dimension that constitutes a protected ground. . . . Opposition to state corruption may provide evidence of an applicant's political opinion or give a persecutor a reason to impute such an opinion.” Ruqiang Yu v. Holder, 693 F.3d 294, 298 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing to Matter of N–M–, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526 (BIA 2011)). “Where opposition to corruption transcends self-protection and represents a challenge to state-sanctioned modes of official behavior, a petitioner may be eligible for asylum.” Id., at 298. “Although opposing corruption for purely self-interested reasons may lack a political motivation, opposition to endemic corruption may have a political dimension when it transcends mere self-protection and represents a challenge to the legitimate authority of the ruling regime.” Id., at 299 (citing to Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93, 95 (2d Cir. 2010)).

Imputed Political Opinion

A political opinion can be imputed if the persecuted party can show that he or she was persecuted because the persecutor thought the persecuted held an opinion, regardless of whether the persecuted party actually held that opinion. The inquiry must be from the persecutor’s perspective. See I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992); Lopez Ordonez v. Barr, 956 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2020). “The nexus requirement may be satisfied by either a political opinion the applicant actually holds or one the persecutor has imputed to him, and it is sufficient for a petitioner to show that his persecutors had attributed to him the political opinion and that he has a well-founded fear of persecution based on that imputed political opinion.”  Ghanem v. Att'y Gen. United States, 14 F.4th 237, 245 (3d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and punctuation omitted; citing to Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157, 181 (3d Cir. 2003) and Balasubramanrim v. INS, 143 F.3d 157, 164 n.10 (3d Cir. 1998)).