Scarred, Then Barred

U.S. Immigration Laws and Courts Harm Black Mauritanian Refugees

This case study outlines reasons many Black Mauritanians who meet the definition of a “refugee” under international and U.S. law have been denied protection in the U.S. immigration courts. Judges’ accusations of “lying” and “fraud” are often based on bias, not evidence. They fail to understand the country’s political history and government-issued identity documents, making decisions based on false assumptions. Migrants often have to present their cases without a legal guide, while the government is represented every time. Once a person is deemed “not credible” by an immigration judge, appellate judges tend to defer to that finding, no matter how wrong the reasoning may be. 

The experiences outlined in this report are not unique to Black Mauritanians. To meet the stated goal of humanitarian protection, the U.S. immigration laws and courts need a redesign at the roots. “Scarred, Then Barred” highlights recommendations from the Mauritania TPS Working Group, Ohio Immigrant Alliance, Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, and Peter L. Markowitz’ paper “A New Paradigm for Humane and Effective Immigration Enforcement.”

Download the report.