Asylee and Refugee

1. Conceptual Distinction: Asylee vs. Refugee

From an international law perspective, the distinction between an Asylee and a Refugee is largely procedural and jurisdictional rather than a difference in the core definition of the person.

• Refugee (The Status): Defined by International Customary Law and Treaties.¹ It is a declaratory status. A person is a refugee the moment they meet the criteria of the 1951 Convention, regardless of whether a state has officially recognized them yet.²
• Asylee (The Protection): “Asylee” is often a term of domestic law (e.g., in the US) referring to a person who has been granted Asylum. Asylum is the discretionary protection a State grants to a refugee.³

While Human Rights law (UDHR Art. 14) guarantees the right to seek asylum, there is no binding international obligation for a state to grant it.4 The hard obligation is Non-Refoulement (not sending them back). Therefore, a person can be legally recognized as a “Refugee” (protected from deportation) but denied “Asylum” (permanent residence/citizenship path) depending on domestic law.5

---

2. Key Legal Provisions

A. The Universal Definition (1951 Refugee Convention & 1967 Protocol)

• Article 1(A)(2): Defines a refugee as someone who, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality and is unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country.⁶
• Article 33 (Non-Refoulement): The cornerstone of refugee law.⁷ No state shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee to a territory where their life or freedom would be threatened.⁸

B. Regional Expansions (Broader Definitions)

the 1951 definition is “individualistic.” Regional instruments expanded this to include mass influx and generalized violence:

• 1969 OAU Convention (Africa): Adds persons compelled to leave due to “external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order.”⁹
• 1984 Cartagena Declaration (Latin America): Includes persons fleeing “generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights.”¹⁰

---

3. Case Law Analysis

Below are three landmark cases essential for understanding the interpretation of these definitions and the extent of state obligations.

Case 1: Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward (1993)

Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Canada (Highly influential in international refugee jurisprudence)11

Topic: Definition of “Particular Social Group” & State Protection

• Facts: Ward was a member of the INLA (a paramilitary group in Northern Ireland).¹² He was sentenced to death by the INLA for helping hostages escape.¹³ He fled to Canada, seeking refugee status, claiming the UK (his state of nationality) could not protect him from the INLA.¹⁴
• Issue:
  1. Does “persecution” require state complicity, or is the state’s inability to protect sufficient?
  2. What constitutes a “Particular Social Group” (PSG)?
• Decision: The Court ruled in favor of the broad interpretation.
  1. State Protection: Persecution exists if the state is unable to protect the individual, even if the state itself is not the persecutor (non-state agents of persecution).¹⁵
  2. PSG Definition: The Court defined PSG into three categories:
     • Groups defined by an innate, unchangeable characteristic (e.g., gender, sexual orientation).¹⁶
     • Groups whose members voluntarily associate for reasons so fundamental to human dignity they should not be forced to forsake the association (e.g., human rights activists).¹⁷
     • Groups associated by a former voluntary status, unalterable due to its historic permanence.¹⁸

Case 2: Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (2012)

Jurisdiction: European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber)19

Topic: Non-Refoulement & Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

• Facts: Somali and Eritrean migrants were intercepted at sea by the Italian Navy outside Italian territorial waters. They were immediately transferred onto Italian military ships and returned to Tripoli, Libya, without any examination of their asylum claims.
• Issue: Does the obligation of non-refoulement (Art. 3 ECHR / Art. 33 Refugee Convention) apply when a state operates outside its own territory (on the high seas)?
• Decision: Yes. Violation found.
  • Jurisdiction: Once the migrants were on Italian military ships, they were under the “de jure and de facto control” of Italy, triggering Italy’s jurisdiction.²⁰
  • Non-Refoulement: Returning them to Libya exposed them to a risk of ill-treatment (chain refoulement to Somalia/Eritrea).²¹ The fact that the interception happened on the high seas did not absolve Italy of its human rights obligations.

Case 3: INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (1987)

Jurisdiction: US Supreme Court

Topic: Standard of Proof (“Asylum” vs. “Non-Refoulement”)

• Facts: A Nicaraguan citizen sought asylum in the US. The immigration judge applied a strict standard, requiring her to show a “clear probability” (more than 50% chance) that she would be persecuted. She argued the standard should be lower—a “well-founded fear.”
• Issue: What is the burden of proof difference between Asylum (discretionary status) and Withholding of Removal (Mandatory non-refoulement)?
• Decision: The Court distinguished the two.
  • For Asylum: The applicant only needs to prove a “well-founded fear,” which can be satisfied by a 10% chance of persecution. It is a subjective-objective test.
  • For Non-Refoulement (Withholding): The standard is higher (“clear probability” or “more likely than not”).
  • Significance: This case highlights the gap between meeting the definition of a refugee (low threshold) and qualifying for mandatory protection (higher threshold in some domestic regimes).

Summary Table for Exam Review

Concept	Refugee	Asylum (Asylee)
Nature	Declaratory Status (You are one if you fit the definition).	Constitutive Status (You become one when the State says so).
Source	1951 Convention (International Law).	Domestic Immigration Law.
Obligation	Non-Refoulement (State cannot return you).	None (State can deny asylum but still not deport you—e.g., “humanitarian protection”).
Key Case	Ward (Defining the criteria).	Cardoza-Fonseca (Standard of proof).

Conclusion: The Tension Between Rights and Sovereignty

the critical takeaway is that the distinction between a refugee and an asylee illustrates the fundamental tension in international human rights law: Universal Rights vs. State Sovereignty.

While the definition of a “refugee” is a creature of International Law (universal, declaratory, and rights-based), the status of “asylee” remains a creature of Domestic Law (discretionary, constitutive, and sovereignty-based).

Key Synthesis for Your Studies:

1. The Normative Gap: International law imposes a negative obligation (Non-Refoulement—”do not send back”) but lacks a corresponding positive obligation (Asylum—”you must accept and integrate”). This creates legal “limbo” situations where recognized refugees are protected from deportation but denied the stability of asylum (e.g., temporary protection visas).
2. Jurisdictional Gamesmanship: As seen in Hirsi Jamaa, states are increasingly engaging in “non-entrée” policies (pushbacks, offshore processing) to prevent individuals from entering their jurisdiction. By doing so, they attempt to avoid the legal trigger that converts a de facto refugee into a de jure asylee.
3. Evolving Definitions: Cases like Ward demonstrate that while the 1951 Convention is old, judicial interpretation is dynamic. The expansion of “social group” to include gender and non-state actors is the primary mechanism through which the law stays relevant to modern human rights crises.

Final Thought:

do not view “Refugee” and “Asylee” as synonyms. View “Refugee” as the human rights claim and “Asylee” as the political validation of that claim. The distance between the two is where the most complex legal battles are fought today.

---