Since the adoption of the CPA, more than 120,000 Vietnamese asylum seekers have been screened for refugee status. In Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, UNHCR reviewed hundreds of cases under its family reunification initiative. Most were rejected for failing to meet UNHCR’s established criteria, but UNHCR believed a small number had valid claims and forwarded them to various resettlement countries for consideration. As a result of this, the United States accepted 23 cases involving 35 persons. The cases were subsequently mandated by UNHCR and resettled in the United States. UNHCR officials in Indonesia and the Philippines effectively stopped submitting cases for consideration to the U.S. embassies due to the lack of response from the United States to review cases informally prior to a declaration of mandate status. In one case in Indonesia, UNHCR approved a family unity claim after examining numerous correspondence between the asylum seekers and their respective families, which indicated that the marriage was recognized by the families in Vietnam through a formal ceremony prior to the refugee status determination. Criteria for Adjudicating Victims of Violence Cases

UNHCR first developed guidelines for handling survivors of violence cases as an internal memorandum in June 1990 and formalized them in its November 1992 “Guidelines on Special Procedures under the Comprehensive Plan of Action.” These two documents outlined the criteria and rationale for including victim of violence cases in a process known as “Special Procedures.” Special Procedures was designed as a separate process to deal with unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable persons such as victims of violence. An important principle underlying the establishment and implementation of Special Procedures is the assessment of “best interest” of persons who are vulnerable and of humanitarian concern. Process Used for Reviewing Cases

When asylum seekers arrived at a first asylum camp and identified themselves as victims of violence, or in cases where UNHCR initiated the identification of the victim, a UNHCR social service counselor would first examine the individuals to determine whether they could articulate their claim to refugee status. The assessments discussed the individual’s current mental state, situation in camp, and ability to understand and articulate a claim of a well-founded fear of persecution. However, in some cases we identified issues that pointed to possible differences and inconsistencies in the way screening procedures may have been implemented. Although many of the case files were well-documented and contained detailed case histories with clear and logical explanations for the refugee status decisions, others were less complete and decisions did not appear to be well-supported by the recorded facts. We assessed cases from the perspective of the CPA criteria, reviewed factual information in the case files, and sought to examine how the screening process was implemented. We were unable to validate these assertions. Review of Merit Cases Highlights Difficulties in Interpreting Refugee Criteria

Of the 33 screened-out cases we reviewed, most did not appear to have strong claims based on the evidence contained in the files. In general, the team found that many of the screening decisions presented limited information about the asylum seeker’s claim for refugee status. Cases 5 and 6

These two cases involve the credibility of the applicants’ claims for refugee status.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the implementation and outcomes of the Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) for Vietnamese asylum seekers in Southeast Asia, focusing on how the refugee status determination process worked for family unit, victim of violence, and general merit cases by: (1) reviewing factual information about such cases from the perspective of international refugee criteria used under the CPA; and (2) examining how the screening process was implemented.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) family unity has been an important principle throughout CPA implementation, yet advocacy groups, asylum seekers, and others have raised concerns that some families were unfairly separated during the refugee screening process; (2) the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reviewed hundreds of screened-out cases to determine whether asylum seekers would qualify for resettlement according to established family unity criteria, but found most failed to meet the program criteria; (3) however, UNHCR identified a small number of cases in Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines that met the criteria prior to UNHCR mandating the asylum seekers as refugees and forwarded 72 of these cases to U.S. embassies for resettlement consideration; (4) the United States initially accepted 23 of 36 cases for resettlement in Malaysia, but embassies in Indonesia and the Philippines refused to review 36 similar cases, since they were not first mandated by UNHCR; (5) victim of violence cases involved individuals who were physically assaulted on the way to, or upon arriving in, one of the first asylum countries, and according to UNHCR officials, many victims were unable to articulate their claim for refugee status, and UNHCR established special procedures to determine a durable solution in their best interest; (6) GAO's review of cases in Indonesia and Malaysia indicated that UNHCR and these governments followed established procedures for processing victim of violence cases; (7) GAO could not evaluate the quality of social service counselors' assessments of victims' ability to articulate a claim for refugee status, although the assessments described in some detail the individuals' mental condition, situation in camp, and ability to understand and present their claim for refugee status; (8) of the 74 merit cases GAO reviewed, it appears that most did not present strong refugee claims based on evidence contained in the files; (9) many case files were well-documented and presented detailed facts and logical explanations for decisions that were made, while others contained documents that pointed to differences and inconsistencies in the way claims may have been handled, such as incomplete documentation, poorly translated information, different interpretations of screening criteria, lack of legal assistance, and what appeared to be an overemphasis on nonessential points in assessing the credibility of an asylum seeker's claim; and (10) as a result, in some cases, GAO could not determine how well the case files reflected the presentation of the asylum seekers' claims.