About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

13 Immigr. & Nat'lity L. Rev. 476 (1991)
Coercive Population Control Policies: An Illustration of the Need for a Conscientious Objector Provision for Asylum Seekers

handle is hein.journals/inlr13 and id is 488 raw text is: IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY LAW REVIEW Coercive Population Control Policies: An Illustration of the Need for a Conscientious Objector Provision for Asylum Seekers On May 12, 1989, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or the Board) dismissed an appeal by a citizen of the People's Republic of China concerning the denial of his applications for asylum and for withholding of deportation.' The Chinese citizen, a thirty-three year-old man named Chang, based his appeal on China's one couple, one child policy, arguing that his applications should have been granted because the policy would require him to be sterilized upon his return to China since he and his wife had two children and refused to agree to limit the size of their family.2 At his deportation hearing, Chang testified that he and his wife had been forced to leave their commune because of their noncompliance with the one couple, one child policy.3 Although Chang had not men- tioned the Chinese population policy in his asylum application,4 he testified at his deportation hearing that he had fled China because 'the government' wanted him to go to a clinic to be sterilized, he thought the operation would 'harm' his body, he did not want to be sterilized, and if he returned to China he would be forced to submit to the operation.'5 According to Chang, he had been ordered to undergo the surgery, and his wife had avoided sterilization only 1. Matter of Chang, Interim Dec. No. 3107 (BIA 1989), reported in 66 Interp. Rel. 751 (July 10, 1989). 2. Id. at 3. 3. Id. 4. Chang's asylum application was largely based on the assertion that he was an anti- Communist living under the Communist domination of China. Id. at 2. Respondent claimed that mention of the one couple, one child policy had been omitted because no one had asked him about the policies and he was unable to express himself well'in English. Id. at 3. 5. Id. at 3. © 1990 by Virginia Journal of International Law. Reprinted with permission.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most