一胎化庇护法律简介

一丶一胎化庇护法的确立。

1996年之前，在美国是没有一胎化庇护的。虽然个别移民官或法官出于对强迫堕胎的痛恨和受害人的痛苦而批准了个别案子，但按照法律，它不是庇护的理由。这是因为，庇护要基于以下五个方面受到了严重的伤害才可能成功：政治观点丶宗教丶民族丶国籍和特殊社会团体。一胎化中，受害人受害的原因是什么呢? 一个妇女被迫堕胎显然不是因为她的政治观点或别的四个原因之一。有的人把它归于特殊社会团体，也就是中国违反了一胎化政策的妇女。不过这个社会团体也太大了些。难以定义。法律是人定的。经过大量的游说（感谢前辈们的努力）国会在1996年的移民法中通过决议，决定一胎化的迫害算是因政治观点的迫害。于是被迫堕胎或结扎的人就可以申请庇护了。法律是这么说的：

“3 Section 101(a)(42) of the Act.
For purposes of determinations under this Act, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for *522 failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.”

翻译：“一个被迫堕胎或被迫绝育的人，或因没有或拒绝堕胎或绝育的而受到迫害的人，或其它抗拒恐吓性人口控制计划而受到迫害的人，可以认为是因政治观点而受到迫害，一个人有充分理由恐惧他或她将被迫经受这一手术，或因为没有丶拒绝或抗拒而有充分理由恐惧会被迫害，可以认为是因为政治观点而有充分理由的恐惧迫害。”

二丶什么是强迫。

移民法没有对“强迫”做出定义。于是就出现了许多混乱。拽到医院丶按在手术台上或捆在手术台上，即肉体上的强迫当然属于强迫，这点法官们倒没有什么分歧。但其它的方式呢？算不算强迫？这就要从判例里去找了。大家知道，美国的法律采用的是“先例法”（Common Law）上诉法庭的先例对法律进行解释，这些解释或曰案例于是也就成了法律。在庇护中，有两个机构负责解释庇护法。一个是移民上诉委员会（BIA） 一个就是联邦上诉法院（有的人叫联邦巡回法院。我不同意这种翻译法。给人的印象好像这些法院居无定所，巡回来巡回去。）联邦上诉法院的解释威力大于移民上诉委员会，有权推翻移民上诉委员会的决定。当然还有美国最高法院，是最权威的。但很少有移民案子到达美国最高法院。美国最高法院主要是解决关系到美国国计民生的大事，一个外国人的庇护是很难得到最高法院的审核的。

关于何为“强迫”，移民上诉委员会在2007年 “In Re T-Z- 24 I & N Dec. 163” 一案中有如下说法：

(1) An abortion is forced by threats of harm when a reasonable person would objectively view the threats for refusing the abortion to be genuine, and the threatened harm, if carried out, would rise to the level of persecution.
(2) Nonphysical forms of harm, such as the deliberate imposition of severe economic disadvantage or the deprivation of liberty, food, housing, employment, or other essentials of life, may amount to persecution.

翻译：（1）因受到威胁伤害的堕胎（满足以下两点）就算是强迫：（一是）一个正常的人客观地认为因拒绝堕胎而受到的这种威胁是真实的，（二是）这种伤害的威胁如果执行了会达到迫害的程度。
（2）非肉体的伤害，如有意地施加严重的经济惩罚或剥夺自由丶食物丶住房丶雇佣或其它生存必需品可以认为是迫害。

在这个总的论述下，移民上诉委员会有具体地举例说明。如：
For instance, the imposition of a fine alone would not be a sufficient basis to consider the procedure to have been “forced,” unless the fine would result in such a substantial economic deprivation that *169 it would constitute persecution. A sterilization or abortion effected through physical coercion or the threat of a substantial prison term would, in most cases, meet the requirement of being “forced.” 翻译：例如，除非罚款构成了严重的经济剥夺达到了迫害的程度，否则罚款本身不能算是强迫。而肉体上的威胁或坐牢的威胁在大多数的情况下可以认为是“强迫”。

Not all threats of fines, wage reduction, or loss of employment, however, will suffice to indicate that submission to an abortion was “forced” within the meaning of the Act. 翻译：不是所有的威胁罚款丶降低工资丶失去工作等算做迫害。

An abortion is not “forced” within the meaning of the refugee definition, however, unless the threatened harm for refusal would, if carried out, be sufficiently severe that it amounts to persecution…The statute requires that the abortion be “forced,” not merely that a person choose an unpreferred course of action as the result of some pressure that sways the choice. The mere fact of submission to pressure *170 only tells us that the particular person’s preference was altered. It is insufficient, by itself, to tell us the level of that pressure or whether it reasonably can be equated to “force.”

除非对于拒绝堕胎的威胁一旦执行，可以达到迫害的程度, 否则堕胎就不算是“强迫”的。法律规定堕胎是“强迫”的。一个人仅仅是因为一些压力而选择了自己不喜欢的行为是不够的。投降于压力只是告诉我们这个人选择改变了。其本身不能告诉我们压力的程度够得上“强迫。”


三丶经济上的制裁要达到迫害的程度才算“强迫”。

移民上诉委员会在上述案子中还详细分析了经济上的惩罚到达什么程度才算迫害。

Persecution requires a showing of more than mere economic discrimination. Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 2003). The economic difficulties must be above and beyond those generally shared by others in the country of origin and involve noticeably more than mere loss of social advantages or physical comforts. Cheng Kai Fu v. INS, 386 F.2d 750, 753 (2d Cir. 1967). Rather, the harm must be “of a deliberate and severe nature and such that is condemned by civilized governments.” H.R. Rep. No. 95-1452, at 7, as reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4706.

An applicant, however, need not demonstrate a total deprivation of livelihood or a total withdrawal of all economic opportunity in order to demonstrate harm amounting to persecution.11 Kovac v. INS, supra, at 106-07; see also Koval v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 798, 806 (7th Cir. 2005); Li v. Attorney General of the U.S., supra, at 168 (rejecting the total deprivation of *174 livelihood standard). Government sanctions that reduce an applicant to an impoverished existence may amount to persecution even if the victim retains the ability to afford the bare essentials of life. A particularly onerous fine, a large-scale confiscation of property, or a sweeping limitation of opportunities to continue to work in an established profession or business may amount to persecution even though the applicant could otherwise survive. Among these three examples, however, a compulsory change in occupation is least likely to qualify as persecution by itself. See Matter of Acosta, supra, at 234 (requiring the alien to change jobs to avoid a guerrilla threat).
翻译：经济上的迫害需要表明不是单纯的经济上的不利。经济上的困难必须是高于母国一般其他人都会碰到的情况。应当明显的不仅仅是得不到社会好处或物质上的舒适。相反，伤害必须是“在本质上是有意的丶严重的，受到文明政府谴责的。”

不过一个申请人要证明达到了迫害的程度，并不需要证明对生存的全面剥夺或对经济机会的全面取消。虽然受害人还可以勉强生存，但政府的这种惩罚如果使受害人出于贫穷的程度也是可以的。一种繁重的罚款丶大量地没收财产丶或全面禁止已经从事的传统专业或生意，虽然受害人还可生存，都可以构成迫害。在上述的三种情况中，被迫改变职业本身很可能够不上迫害。

对于罚款，移民上诉委员会列举了第二联邦上诉法院的一个案子加以说明。那个案子说：
on the facts presented, the fine imposed for harboring a relative wanted for involuntary sterilization was insufficient to establish persecution. The court noted that “[n]o testimony or other evidence was presented regarding petitioner’s income in China, his net worth at the time of the fines, or any other facts that would make it possible for us to evaluate his personal financial circumstances in relation to the fines.” Id. at 70; see also Yuan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F.3d 192, 198 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that an alien who was fired as a result of his daughter-in-law’s violation of a family planning law was not harmed to the level of persecution when there was “no evidence that he was barred from getting another position, or even that he looked”).
翻译：根据案子的现有材料，申请人因为藏匿一个亲戚逃避非自愿结扎所受到的罚款达不到迫害的程度。申请人没有提供证词或证据说明他在中国的收入丶罚款时的净收入。申请人也没有提供别的事实可以使我们评估因罚款个人的情况会怎样。有个申请人因为儿媳违反了一胎化而被解雇。但这种解雇够不上迫害，因为没有证据证明不允许他找别的工作，他甚至都没有去找过。

The availability of other sources of income has been a key factor in assessing the impact of economic sanctions. In Capric v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1075, 1092-93 (7th Cir. 2004), the court found that the alien’s loss of a job and an apartment based on religion and ethnicity did not amount to past persecution where the government had given him 8 months to find a new residence, his wife had remained employed, he had not attempted to find other work, and the regional economic conditions in general were harsh. See also Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding that the forced closing of the applicant’s restaurant did not rise to the level of harm constituting past persecution when he continued to operate other businesses); Ubau-Marenco v. INS, 67 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 1995) (concluding that confiscation of a family business without compensation because of the family’s political beliefs may not be enough, standing alone, to support a finding of past persecution based on economic harm), overruled on other grounds by Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1996).
移民上诉委员会还引用了其它案子来说明经济上的惩罚达不到迫害的程度。 翻译：是否能有别的收入是个关键因素。有个申请人因为宗教问题和民族问题而失去了工作和公寓没有达到迫害的程度。这是因为政府给了他8个月去找新的住处，他的妻子继续工作着，他没有去找另外的工作，他的地区的经济情况本来就不好。还有个案例说因为申请人还有其它的生意在做，所以强行关闭申请人的饭店算不上迫害。还有个案例说因为申请人的政治观点而没收家庭的生意，其本身并不能证明申请人受到了经济迫害。

Other decisions have found that various combinations of economic sanctions were sufficiently severe to constitute past persecution. For example, in Li v. Attorney General of the U.S., supra, at 169, the Third Circuit concluded that “n the aggregate, a fine of more than a year and a half’s *175 salary; blacklisting from any government employment and from most other forms of legitimate employment; the loss of health benefits, school tuition, and food rations; and the confiscation of household furniture and appliances from a relatively poor family constitute deliberate imposition of severe economic disadvantage which could threaten [the] family’s freedom if not their lives.”
移民上诉委员会还列举了其它一些案例，说明经济迫害怎样界定。翻译：其它一些决定认为各种经济惩罚加起来可能构成迫害。例如第三上诉法院在李的案子中说过，“加起来看，数额相当于一年半收入的罚款丶上了不准政府雇佣或其它合法的工作雇佣的黑名单丶失去医疗保障丶学费的减免丶食物的分配以及对一个相对贫穷的家庭没收家具和电器等构成了故意施加严重的经济伤害，算得上威胁了一个家庭的自由—如果不能说是威胁了生命的话。”

移民上诉委员会进一步分析了T-Z-本身的案子，说：The record in the case before us contains scant information regarding the respondent’s financial situation. It does not indicate whether the respondent and his spouse owned their own home, or if they lived in government housing or with the support of relatives. The record is unclear as to the amount of household income the respondent and his wife earned, how their income compared to that of other households in the region, and the minimum level of income required to provide a family of this size with food, shelter, and the other essentials of life. When asked whether, if his wife lost her job, the two of them could survive on his income, the responded answered somewhat indirectly: “Because, at that time, my only, my salary only 200 (indiscernible). Because she graduated from University, she make[s] more salary than me. Therefore, if she lost her job, it would be a big effect on our life.” Although the respondent indicated at one point that his salary was “very low,” he never clearly stated the amount of his or his wife’s salary. The respondent’s description of the economic consequences of the loss of his wife’s salary was that he would have found it “hard to keep up with my living expenses” and that life would have been “difficult.” Without clearer evidence of the difficulty the respondent and his family would have had in relying on the respondent’s income, we cannot find that the respondent has described economic threats, which, if carried out, would amount to persecution.
翻译：案子的记录中很少有申请人的经济情况。案子中没有说明申请人和他太太是否拥有房子，或者他们是住在政府提供的房子里或者有其他亲戚的帮助。记录中没有申请人和他太太的总收入，他们的家庭收入和那一个地区其他人的收入的对比，没有信息说明支持那样一个家庭如食物丶居住等基本生活需要要多少收入。当问他如果他的太太失去工作，两个人是否可以以他的收入生活时，申请人转弯抹角地回答说“当时因为我的工资只有200元，因为她大学毕业，她挣得比我多。因此，如果她失去工作，我们将受到很大的影响。”虽然申请人说过他的工资很低，他从来没有清楚地说明他的工资是多少，他老婆的工资是多少。申请人是这样描述他老婆失去工作后的情景的：“很难支付我生活的费用，” 生活将很困难。案子没有清楚地说明靠他一人的工资生活将会是个什么样子，我们认为申请人所描述的经济威胁，如果实现了，也达不到迫害的程度。

四丶被迫堕胎或被迫绝育的迫害是终身的。

大家知道，庇护的中心问题是申请人有着充分理由的恐惧，也就是说害怕回国，担心将来还会回国受到迫害。要证明有充分理由的恐惧，可以通过两种方式，一是过去受到了迫害，二是过去没有受到迫害但因为某种原因担心将来的迫害。法律规定，除非国情起了变化，否则一个人过去受到了迫害，法律就假设他将来还会受到迫害，即他有了充分理由的恐惧。

在一胎化庇护初期，许多问题是不清楚的。例如曾有一个法官对申请人说，你既然被迫结扎了，回国后你就不能再怀孕再生孩子了。因此你就没有了充分理由的恐惧。结果法官拒绝了庇护。申请人上诉到移民上诉委员会，移民上诉委员会做出了解释。这就是有名的Matter of Y-T-L-, 23 I&N Dec. 601 (BIA 2003)
Y-T-L- 这个案子中，移民上诉委员会是这样分析的。被迫堕胎和被迫绝育的迫害和其它迫害不同。其它的迫害，例如因宗教信仰而被拘留一周，被殴打，过几年也就忘记了，不会继续疼痛。而被迫堕胎或被迫绝育的迫害是终身的。所谓终身的就是迫害在今天还在继续。 那种羞辱，侮辱和失去孩子的痛苦是终生难忘的。国会在通过一胎化庇护时是把一胎化的庇护看做一种特殊的庇护。只要是被迫堕胎了或被迫绝育了，可以获得庇护。第九法院在有名的 Qu v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir.2005) 一案中明确地说明，只要是被迫堕胎或被迫绝育了就可以获得庇护，而不需要证明其它什么。移民上诉委员会进一步解释说，不这样解释，法律就自相矛盾了。一方面说被迫绝育的人可以申请庇护，一方面又说因为你绝育了不能生孩了就不给你庇护，不是矛盾了吗？

对于这一点，移民官是懂得的，可惜我们的许多事务所不懂，甚至许多申请人也不懂。自认为被迫堕胎或被迫绝育三十多年了，自己也没有月经了，怎么还能申请庇护呢？本事务所在今年五月份做了两个67岁的的案子，虽然被迫堕胎发生在80年代初，移民官都批了。

五丶男士的一胎化庇护。
在2008年5月前，丈夫可以以妻子被迫堕胎或绝育申请庇护。但是在2008年5月，大法官公布了一个案例，改变了原来的规定，说男的不能以老婆被迫堕胎或被迫绝育申请庇护了。他们自己必须表明有其它抗拒一胎化的行为，而且因此而受到伤害，而且这种伤害还必须达到迫害的程度，也就是要很严重。去年第九上诉法院对这一决定“放宽”了一些，在一个李性的案子中说各种伤害可以加起来算，特别是还可以把太太被迫堕胎或被迫绝育的伤害加上去。

六丶”其它抗拒”, 即移民法中说的“Other Resistance”。

Congress provided that persons not subjected to abortion or sterilization but who claimed persecution on account of “other resistance to a coercive population control program” might also qualify as refugees, but only upon showing that (1) they resisted the population program, (2) they suffered persecution, and (3) the persecution was inflicted on account of their resistance. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).

国会规定，没有遭受到堕胎或绝育的人如果因为“其它抗拒胁迫性人口控制政策而”而受到迫害的人也可以申请庇护，但他们必须证明（1）他们抗拒了那个政策；（2）他们遭受到了迫害；（3）迫害是因为他们抗拒了那个政策。

2008年5月后，男士的申请基本是建立在“其它抗拒”上。许多案例对此做了说明，引用如下。当然女性也可以以“其它抗拒”来申请。

第九法院咋一个蒋姓案子中提到过，申请人和其女友住在一起，不够年龄就去登记结婚，不让结婚就自己举行传统的婚礼。后来计生办官员和警察来捉他们，他逃了，女友被抓了，被迫堕胎了。他们是在抗拒一胎化。

其它的一些案子说：“非法”取环，不参加妇科检查也算是抗拒。
In re S－L－L－, 24 I. & N. Dec. 1, 10 (B.I.A.2006) 说“抗拒可以包括很多内容，例如公开的反对丶干扰一胎化的执行丶以及其它明显抗拒一胎化政策的要求的行为。
使女朋友怀孕一般不能算是抗拒一胎化政策。

七丶在美生子的问题。
我多次说过，除非另有情况，在美生子不是庇护的理由。在“前车之鉴（十九）中，我介绍了一个案例。案例说：第十一联邦上诉法院2011年9月15日拒绝了一个蒋姓案子。蒋和其丈夫声称她们有两个在美国生的孩子，担心回国会被迫绝育。上诉法院有以下说法：
对于未来的迫害，要满足两个条件：主观上害怕，客观上合理。以一胎化申请的案子要个案分析。要证明客观上合理，申请人必须证明 1) 与申请人有关的一胎化政策；（2）申请人违反了这一政策；（3）当地的惩罚会达到正常的人也害怕迫害的程度。
蒋姓案子的档案中（1）没有证据证明类似的人遭受到迫害，因而一个正常的人也会害怕迫害。（2）有文件说明福建强迫绝育并不普遍；（3）美国出生的孩子回中国时可能不算中国公民。即便申请人回国会遭到罚款，他们没有证明这一罚款会构成“严重的经济损害”，使他们的家庭成为“贫困户”。
许多申请人常说我要搞二胎庇护。这个说法本身就是错误的。二胎并不是庇护的理由。被迫堕胎或被迫绝育或其它抗拒才是庇护的理由。你一胎未生照样可以申请庇护—如果你未婚先孕或已婚头胎被迫堕胎的话。有人认为我二胎生的是美国公民，我有监护权。认为自己就可以有绿卡了。移民法中没有这一条，说美国公民监护人可以有绿卡。还有人误以为大着肚子去面谈更容易获得同情。但如果你面谈碰到个不好的移民官，她（注意是“她”）很可能想，“你就是来生孩子的嘛，又搞出个什么庇护，老娘偏不批你!” 至于好的移民官，他本来就要批你，何必再搞个大肚子，画蛇添足。

源于网络