Outcome of Asylum Case Depends on Where It’s Heard
The United States Supreme Court recently declined to hear the case of a Chinese national seeking political asylum in the U.S. because his wife was forced to abort her pregnancy at eight months as a result of China's harsh population-control laws.
According to the Christian Science Monitor, Yi Qiang Ying, a Chinese man, married then-17-year-old Jian Hi Ling in a traditional Chinese ceremony. Sources indicate that Ying's immigration lawyer has explained that such marriages are currently prohibited in China based on the strict population control laws - marriage for men younger than 22 and women younger than 20 is considered illegal, and is not recognized by the state.
It seems the real question behind the case was whether or not U.S. immigration law protects the spouses of those adversely affected by harsh policies like China's. More specifically, according to Ying's lawyer, the question is whether or not the U.S. would recognize a traditional wedding not considered legal in China - in other words, whether the U.S. would recognize Ying as Ling's husband.
Because the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of Ying's asylum refusal from a lower court, the answer to that question seems to be no.
But immigration attorneys and activists are unsatisfied with the Court's decision on this case.
Apparently, similar cases tried in the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco and in the Seventh Circuit Court in Chicago led judges to grant political asylum to spouses who were linked by traditional marriages but who were not legally married in the eyes of Chinese law.
The Second Circuit Court in New York and the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, on the other hand, both ruled that asylum should not be granted to non-legal spouses.
As Ying's immigration lawyer pointed out, the outcome of Ying's case rested on little more than where his case was heard. Lawyers involved have also pointed to the fact that nearly 9,000 asylum cases were brought before U.S. courts in 2006 from Chinese nationals, many of them by couples in situations similar to Ying's.
The Associated Press reports that U.S. immigration law is designed to protect those who are explicitly harmed by the oppressive laws in their homelands - in this case, only Ling, who was the victim of a forced abortion, evidently meets these criteria.
But immigration attorneys apparently still feel that, because various U.S. courts have come to different conclusions on the issue, the Supreme Court should have heard Ying's case. Clearly, enough legal ambiguity is present to allow courts to reach vastly different conclusions.
Ying's case, while tragic, serves as a reminder of the importance of working with an immigration lawyer when difficulties arise during the immigration process or when seeking asylum, applying for citizenship or fighting deportation.