Dwomoh v. Sava

District Court, S.D. New York
696 F. Supp. 970 (1988)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In countries lacking procedures for peaceful political change, participation in a coup d'etat can be an expression of political opinion, and prosecution for such an act can constitute 'persecution' qualifying an individual for refugee status under the Refugee Act of 1980.

Facts:

Nana Asante Dwomoh was a Sergeant in the Ghanaian Army.
Ghana was ruled by a military regime that had seized power from a democratically-elected government and prohibited all peaceful means of political change.
Disturbed by worsening political conditions, including summary executions and the threatened execution of a political prisoner who was his friend, Dwomoh agreed to participate in a coup against the military government.
On November 6, 1985, the day before the planned coup, Dwomoh was arrested by a military patrol.
Following his arrest, Dwomoh was beaten several times during interrogations.
Dwomoh was imprisoned for more than a year at Ussher Fort Prison without access to counsel, family, or friends.
On December 22, 1986, Dwomoh escaped from prison and fled to the United States.

Procedural Posture:

Nana Asante Dwomoh applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for political asylum and withholding of deportation.
An Immigration Judge, the court of first instance, denied his petition.
Dwomoh appealed the denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the intermediate appellate body for immigration cases.
The BIA, in a split decision, affirmed the Immigration Judge's denial, holding as a matter of law that participation in a coup d'etat does not qualify an individual as a 'refugee.'
Dwomoh filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court to challenge the BIA's legal determination.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does participation in an attempted coup d'etat against a totalitarian regime, where peaceful means of political change are unavailable, categorically disqualify an individual from refugee status under the Refugee Act of 1980?

Opinions:

Majority - Wood, J.

No. Participation in a coup against a totalitarian government does not automatically disqualify an applicant from refugee status; such an act can be a form of political expression, and prosecution for it can constitute persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erred by interpreting the Refugee Act of 1980 to create a distinction between merely expressing political views and acting on them through a coup. The court's reasoning is grounded in congressional intent: the Act was designed to conform U.S. law with international standards, such as the U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which have historically protected individuals engaged in resistance activities against totalitarian governments. The structure of the Act itself, which explicitly excludes those who commit 'serious non-political crimes,' implies that those who commit political crimes may be included. The BIA's comparison of Ghana's treason laws to those of the United States was inapt because it failed to account for Ghana's lack of due process and absence of peaceful avenues for political change. In such a repressive context, an attempted coup is a political act, and persecution for that act is persecution on account of political opinion.

Analysis:

This decision is significant because it rejects a rigid, categorical approach to asylum claims involving political violence. It establishes that the term 'political opinion' under the Refugee Act is not limited to speech but can also encompass actions, particularly in repressive states where peaceful dissent is impossible. The ruling mandates that immigration authorities conduct a context-specific inquiry into the political conditions of the applicant's home country. This prevents the government from summarily denying asylum to individuals who participated in uprisings against non-democratic regimes, thereby broadening the scope of protection for those engaged in political resistance.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Dwomoh v. Sava (1988)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"