Thread: Asylum-Seeker Rejected Based On Wikipedia,

Asylum-Seeker Rejected Based On Wikipedia, Appeals Court Reverts
By Ryan Singel September 02, 2008 | 2:48:18 PM
The Department of Homeland Security should not use the user-generated Wikipedia to decide whether an asylum seeker can enter the United States, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

That judicial statement of the obvious (.pdf) from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which said DHS committed no big foul in using a site editable by anyone with a computer to decide the fate of a woman named Lamilem Badasa.

DHS decided to deport Badasa after consulting Wikipedia to decide whether a Ethiopian travel document known as a laissez-passer was adequate to prove her identity.

Using the Wikipedia page as evidence, the government convinced an immigration judge that the document did not prove her identity, calling it a one-way travel document based on information provided by the applicant.

While the Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently said it didn't "encourage the use of resources such as Wikipedia.com in reaching pivotal decisions in immigration proceedings," it allowed the decision to stand since it couldn't find any clear error.

The three-judge panel of the appeals court found that split decision disturbing. The court reiterated that anyone can edit Wikipedia and there's no guarantee that the information on the page at the time the government officials looked at it had any correct information at all. The site may have misled and tainted government officials' decisions in the case, the judges ruled:

The [Board of Immigration Appeals] presumably was concerned that Wikipedia is not a sufficiently reliable source on which to rest the determination that an alien alleging a risk of future persecution is not entitled to asylum. [...]

We do not know whether the [Immigration Judge] would have reached the same conclusion without Wikipedia, or whether (and, if so, why) the [Board of Immigration Appeals] believes that the IJ’s consideration of Wikipedia was harmless error, in the sense that it did not influence the IJ’s decision.

The appeals court sent the case back down to the Board of Immigration Appeals to have it explain why it believes Wikipedia didn't taint the entire decision-making process.

Future U.S. asylum seekers are well advised to make sure the Wikipedia page about, say, Burma's repressive government are adequately dire before submitting their application.

Photo: Flickr/Kevin Wong



http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/0 ... ker-r.html

My experiences with Wikipedia leads me to believe I would not use them as a final word in anything. They are pretty good for providing links to reliable sources, but that is about it. If this woman really is not eligible for asylem, so be it, but I agree the decision must be based on something stronger than Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, go look up La raza on the site.

Perhaps Chertoff should pass the hat around and buy his agents/ attorneys some decent law books, and or the materials they need to do their jobs! Either that or you have some agents/attorneys taking short cuts which is also not good! Chertoff, your a lawyer for goodness sakes! Where is the leadership?

The only question BIA needs to review, it would seem, as if in fact the information relied upon to reach their decision was correct! DHS would be wise to find a more suitable source in the meantime...

Perhaps Chertoff should pass the hat around and buy his agents/ attorneys some decent law books, and or the materials they need to do their jobs!

Amen to that, NoBueno. Or Chertoff should just have his agents/attorneys take advantage of the law libraries at federal prisons, which are updated every year at a cost of more than $220,000 each per year at the expense of the US taxpayers.

THEY ARE DEPORTING HER BECAUSE SHE CANT PROVE HER IDENTITY. WHERE IS HER BIRTH CERTIFICATE? SHE HAS TO SHOW THEM PROOF THAT SHE IS WHO SHE SAYS SHE IS. I AGREE WIKI IS SHAKY....BUT SO IS HER DOCUMENTATION. THEY DONT KNOW WHO SHE IS. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN ON HER.

Originally Posted by redpony353

THEY ARE DEPORTING HER BECAUSE SHE CANT PROVE HER IDENTITY. WHERE IS HER BIRTH CERTIFICATE? SHE HAS TO SHOW THEM PROOF THAT SHE IS WHO SHE SAYS SHE IS. I AGREE WIKI IS SHAKY....BUT SO IS HER DOCUMENTATION. THEY DONT KNOW WHO SHE IS. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN ON HER.

Exactly, that is why it is back in the lower courts. She and the government both need to prove their cases without wiki