Better Late than Never: A Critique of the United States' Asylum Filing Deadline from International and Comparative Law Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This note critiques the filing deadline for asylum applications in the United States by comparing it to relevant international standards and the practices of other countries. It first looks to international treaties governing asylum procedures and the obligations of the U.S. under international law. It then compares the asylum procedures of three countries that admit similarly large numbers of refugees - Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom - and discusses the filing deadlines, if any, that they impose on asylum applications in their respective countries. Finally, this note examines the U.S.'s filing deadline for asylum applications (the one-year bar) and the difficulties this deadline presents for asylum seekers in the U.S. The note concludes that the one-year bar violates the U.S.'s treaty obligations and is out of step with common practices of other countries. It also concludes that the one-year bar is both unfair and unreasonable and prevents otherwise eligible refugees from obtaining asylum in the U.S., particularly impoverished asylum seekers. With the possibility of comprehensive immigration reform approaching, this note offers several recommendations for the U.S. government, either to eliminate the one-year bar entirely or adopt other measures to lessen its negative effects on bona fide asylum-seekers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".