BRIEF OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT in case GRACE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

new policies have interpreted the refugee definition in a manner at variance with the United States’ international obligations on a number of fronts: First, in assessing state protection, the new policies recast the “unable or unwilling” standard into one requiring a showing of “complete helplessness” or “condoned” action. Second, the new policies misconstrue the requirements for defining a particular social group, and further elevate a threshold that was already too high by international standards. Third, the new policies misapply the nexus requirement, creating an unjustified barrier to persons fleeing gang and domestic violence. Fourth, the new policies apply all of the aforementioned standards to the credible fear interview process—a process that should screen out only “clearly abusive” or “manifestly unfounded” claims. Imposing these standards at the initial screening stage jeopardizes the ability of decision-makers to recognize meritorious claims, thereby increasing the risk that the United States will be at variance with its obligation to non-refoulement.