Advertisement
Food stalls at Dzaleka Well I confronted my first real challenge here in a (near-)attorney capacity. Today a group of fifteen students who have been approved for a program to study abroad in a Western country had their interviews with the country’s immigration official to determine whether they would gain refugee status there. No student approved by the program has ever been rejected by the country’s immigration before, but to our great surprise a student from Rwanda I’ll call Sourire—whose refugee status has been recognized both by Malawi and UNHCR—was turned down. I went with a colleague to meet with the immigration official to try and determine what happened and whether she might appeal. The official was a nightmare. She couldn’t discuss individual cases, she initially said, but then went on to say that Rwanda has achieved “total peace” (thereby implying that Sourire was rejected because she can safely return to Rwanda). Meanwhile, this woman had already approved several other students from Rwanda! Furthermore, whether or not Rwanda has achieved “total peace” is in no way dispositive. And I don’t think I need to mention the audacity of a western woman who has never even been to Rwanda telling someone who fled the genocide
there and has good reason to fear going back that her country is in “total peace.” Can you imagine… It's not uncommon for low-level admin. personnel to get refugee law wrong. In fact, the asylum bureaucracy’s guiding principle, in the U.S. and in most other countries, is like the health insurance company policy in
The Rainmaker: reject as many initial claims as possible. So naturally our primary goal for the meeting was to find out how to appeal. No appeal, the official said—she got a great deal of pleasure from telling us she was the final decision maker. She gave us a spiel about how we should keep in mind that her country’s refugee definition is very lenient, even more so than the Convention definition. Um, well then why was she rejecting someone who met the even narrower definition! Other than pointing that out I have to say I did a pretty good (though not impeccable) job of keeping my cool—my colleague on the other hand (a nun who spent a great deal of time in Rwanda I might add) was a little more open with her feelings about the situation! It is especially troubling because Sourire is one of only three female students in the program. I think I have mentioned before that girls in the camp face serious inequalities in terms of education; they are usually responsible for caring for younger siblings and performing household chores such as cleaning and cooking which often conflict with their schooling, and are often married off while they are still children (even as young as primary school) which is essentially the death knell for their education from that point on. So Sourire overcame quite a lot to make it this far. I have a meeting tomorrow w/ the UNHCR protection officer here who will hopefully wield a little more influence (especially given the country's obligations under int'l law).
On a more uplifting note there was a party yesterday for the outgoing country director at the camp, at which several students performed a play intended to honor her work to improve educational opportunities at the camp. The underlying theme of the play was the conflict between tradition and progress. One scene involved a group of young men wearing western-style clothes and talking in American-style slang (saying things like “hey, man” and “cool”), who are confronted by one of their friends who tries to impress upon them the importance of remembering where they came from (Rwanda). At that point the girls came in performing a traditional Rwandan dance. In another scene a sixteen-year old girl is told by her father that she must marry the son of a richer family in the camp. She begs her father to allow her to complete her education, asking him where he got the idea that a girl who finishes school comes out with nothing, and that a girl is born to be married. In the end, the boys get to study abroad through the program I described above, and the sixteen-year-old girl sees them off—pregnant through her arranged marriage and stuck in the camp. It was kind of depressing, but I think it demonstrated how much of a difference the outgoing director has made in terms of educating the youth at the camp about the importance of education for girls as well as boys. Afterwards there was a dance party (at which, sadly, only western music like Phil Collins was played!) and everyone had a great time. We also had a photo-fest—at least thirty of the kids wanted their photo taken with me, and only me! My fifteen minutes of fame, I guess!
This Sunday I have yet another invitation to lunch at the house of one of my Malawian colleagues, Margret, which I am really excited about. She is one of the only young professional women I have met who is not married. I really like her; she is very outspoken. Every morning on the hour-long drive to the camp she and Isaiah get into a heated debate about something or other, and she doesn’t let him bully her (which he is prone to do). It gets a little too intense for such an early hour so we try and lighten up the mood by making jokes but Isaiah doesn’t take to humor too well! He’s a very serious fellow, very ambitious. I think I mentioned that he took in two orphan girls (one of whom is named Chimwewe—“joy” in Chichewa—which I think is beautiful), and also supports his other family members. He also teaches at the camp, is constantly in the studio recording music (with very conscientious lyrics), is in the process of writing his first book, and plans to run for parliament in 2009! Needless to say he doesn’t have much time for humor, and I think he thinks it takes away from the gravitas he’s trying to cultivate 😊.
Alright that’s more than enough for today.
love,
martina
Advertisement
Tot: 0.073s; Tpl: 0.017s; cc: 7; qc: 30; dbt: 0.0349s; 1; m:domysql w:travelblog (10.17.0.13); sld: 1;
; mem: 1.1mb