The Limits of Empathy: When U.S. Immigration Policy Fails Those Most in Need

The case of “Chuol,” a Sudanese refugee facing repeated deportation proceedings, highlights the profound disconnect between the realities of conflict and trauma and the bureaucratic machinery of the U.S. Immigration system. His story, examined by conflict researcher Joshua Craze, reveals a system where the complexities of human experience are reduced to legal technicalities, and where even acknowledged genocide may not be sufficient grounds for protection.

A Fragmented History

Born in 1987, during Sudan’s Second Civil War (1983-2005), Chuol’s early life was marked by displacement and violence. He fled to Ethiopia as a child, spending nearly a decade in a refugee camp before being resettled in Virginia in 2009. [1] However, his path to stability was fraught with challenges. His account of his past was inconsistent, including claims of conscription into a non-existent Christian militia and conflicting timelines regarding his father’s death and potential capture by the Sudanese government. [1]

Mental Health and the Legal System

These inconsistencies were attributed, in part, to Chuol’s documented mental health struggles. Medical records indicated difficulties with memory and potential intellectual disabilities, leading one doctor to label him a “poor historian.” [1] Despite this, Craze argues that these “holes” in his story are a reflection of the trauma he endured. However, the U.S. Immigration system often views such inconsistencies as evidence of fraud, jeopardizing asylum claims.

The Cycle of Detention and Deportation

Chuol’s legal battles continued for years. Initially released from ICE detention in 2021 for reasons Craze never fully understood, he was re-incarcerated in 2025. [1] His criminal record, including theft and resisting arrest, disqualified him from renewing his asylum claim. His last hope rested on a “Deferral of Removal” under the Convention Against Torture (DCAT), requiring proof that he would likely face torture upon deportation, with the sanction of a public official.

A Shifting Landscape of Refugee Policy

Craze’s caseload of DCAT cases increased significantly after 2016, coinciding with changes in U.S. Immigration policy. [1] He notes that many of his clients, like Chuol, arrived in the U.S. As children during a period of more open refugee policies in the 1980s and 1990s. The U.S. Resettlement program was curtailed during the Trump administration, and European nations implemented measures to block refugees. [1]

The Power of Prescription Drugs

A surprising legal strategy emerged in these cases: leveraging the reliance on psychiatric medication. Because neither Sudan nor South Sudan could provide the medications Chuol and others depended on, lawyers argued that deportation would constitute torture – the deprivation of essential medical care. [1] This argument proved surprisingly effective, leading to several successful DCAT rulings.

A Case Denied

Despite the worsening humanitarian situation in both Sudan and South Sudan – including a civil war in Sudan declared a genocide by the Biden administration [1] – Chuol’s DCAT claim was ultimately denied in July 2025. The judge acknowledged the potential for violence and torture but ruled that it wasn’t specific enough to Chuol’s case. The DHS lawyer argued that even if Chuol faced abuse, it wouldn’t be unique and therefore didn’t qualify as torture. [1]

The Human Cost of Bureaucracy

Chuol’s case underscores a disturbing trend: the dehumanization of refugees within the U.S. Legal system. The focus on legal technicalities and the dismissal of individual circumstances highlight the limitations of empathy within a bureaucratic framework. The story serves as a stark reminder of the human cost of immigration policies that prioritize order and control over compassion and understanding.