{"id":1625,"date":"2026-04-20T11:54:15","date_gmt":"2026-04-20T15:54:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/?page_id=1625"},"modified":"2026-04-20T11:55:54","modified_gmt":"2026-04-20T15:55:54","slug":"thus-conscience-does-make-cowards-of-us-all-how-a-duress-exception-to-the-persecutor-bar-should-function-in-modern-asylum-law","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/in-print\/volume-39-number-3-spring-2025\/thus-conscience-does-make-cowards-of-us-all-how-a-duress-exception-to-the-persecutor-bar-should-function-in-modern-asylum-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Thus Conscience Does Make Cowards of Us All: How a Duress Exception to the Persecutor Bar Should Function in Modern Asylum Law"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>This Note argues that U.S. asylum law should incorporate a duress exception to the persecutor bar, which currently denies asylum to individuals who committed persecutory acts, even if they did so under coercion, without sharing their leaders\u2019 persecutory motives. The landmark case <em>Negusie v. Holder<\/em>\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_1625_1' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_1625_1'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>1<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_1625_1' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #1<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_1625_1' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_1625_1' tabindex='-1'>1<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #1 content: <\/span>Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511, 521 (2009).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t has sparked fierce debates over Congress\u2019s intent when creating the modern persecutor bar through the Refugee Act of 1980, with some reading the text as imposing strict liability. However, this note argues that Congress envisioned a duress exception, given that its goal in enacting the Refugee Act was to domesticate international refugee-related agreements to which the United States is a party, and those agreements do not contemplate strict liability bars. The prevailing interpretation disregards modern neuroscientific and humanitarian perspectives, and unjustly excludes some of the most vulnerable individuals from relief, particularly child soldiers and people subject to mandatory universal conscription programs. Although the administrative agencies responsible for immigration, the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice (DHS and DOJ), have recently argued that the United States can meet its international obligations to protect refugees without extending asylum relief,\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_1625_2' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_1625_2'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>2<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_1625_2' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #2<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_1625_2' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_1625_2' tabindex='-1'>2<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #2 content: <\/span><em>See<\/em> Securing the Border, <em>infra<\/em> n.38; Circumvention of Lawful Pathways regulations, <em>infra<\/em> n.38.\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t instead relying on deferral of removal under the Convention against Torture (\u201cCAT relief\u201d) for individuals subject to the persecutor bar, this argument should be rejected. CAT provides scant protection against deportation in limited circumstances, with no other automatic benefits. Without asylum, the recipient is not guaranteed work authorization, cannot apply for family members to join him, and must live without any permanent status \u2013 not the circumstances best calculated to make a refugee feel safe.<\/p>\n<p>Part I reviews the relevant historical context of the persecutor bar within U.S. immigration law, then gives an overview of some of the procedures and legal requirements of an asylum case. Part II analyzes the statutory language, drawing upon the international treaty underlying the persecutor bar to demonstrate that a duress exception aligns with both legislative intent and international legal norms. It also dives deep into the <em>Negusie<\/em> case. This part examines the parties\u2019 and adjudicators\u2019 arguments for and against a duress exception and assesses the future of the debate after <em>Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo<\/em>\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_1625_3' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_1625_3'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>3<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_1625_3' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #3<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_1625_3' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_1625_3' tabindex='-1'>3<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #3 content: <\/span><em>See infra<\/em> n.10.\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t introduced a sea change to administrative law.<\/p>\n<p>Part III turns to policy arguments, using neuroscientific discoveries to rebut outdated rationales that were used to justify a strict liability bar. It advances a humanitarian perspective to target a duress exception towards the most vulnerable and least dangerous applicants. Part IV proposes a legal test for courts to apply when evaluating duress claims in asylum cases. It advocates a narrow duress exception, applied to children <em>per se<\/em> and to youth and mandatory conscripts on a case-by-case basis, suggesting the fairest way to share the burden of proof between asylum seekers and the U.S. government. This test considers factors such as the severity of the harm and threats that purport to constitute duress, the applicant\u2019s age and cultural context, and the moral and practical choices available to the applicant. Congress, the executive departments, and asylum seekers\u2019 representatives can all play a part in bringing about needed changes. By adopting this framework, the United States can ensure a more just and humane asylum system that lives up to our values of promoting personal agency and welcoming those fleeing persecution, without sacrificing accountability or public safety.<\/p>\n<p>Continue reading <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/19\/2026\/04\/GT-GILJ250024.pdf\">Thus Conscience Does Make Cowards of Us All<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This Note argues that U.S. asylum law should incorporate a duress exception to the persecutor bar, which currently denies asylum to individuals who committed persecutory acts, even if they did [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":28,"featured_media":0,"parent":1612,"menu_order":3,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-1625","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1625","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/28"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1625"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1625\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1628,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1625\/revisions\/1628"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1612"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1625"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}