How do you win asylum in the United States if you have multiple citizenships?
Why is it easier to win this type of case in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont than in any other state?
How could the situation change in the future?
How do these rules usually affect Russian-speaking asylum seekers?
And what can you do to increase your chances of success?
At the end, we will separately discuss the most common combinations — Russia plus Ukraine, Russia plus the countries of Central Asia, and Israel — including a case from our own practice where the person apparently lost a second citizenship, and the second-passport problem disappeared with it.
1. Overview
2. Where the Rule on Multiple Citizenships Came From
2.1. The Refugee Convention
2.2. How This Rule Made It — and Did Not Make It — Into U.S. Law
3. Matter of B-R-: The Rule for Most of the United States
3.1. Facts of the Case
3.2. What the BIA Held
3.3. Who Must Prove the Second Citizenship
4. Zepeda-Lopez: The Exception for New York, Connecticut, and Vermont
4.1. Why the Second Circuit Refused to Follow B-R-
4.2. Two Different Rules Within the United States
5. How the Situation May Develop in the Future
5.1. What Will Happen in the Second Circuit
5.2. What May Happen in Other States
6. What You Need to Do to Win This Type of Case
6.1. Build the Case Around Every Country of Citizenship
6.2. Prepare the Argument That the Second Country Will Not Protect You
6.3. New York, Vermont, and Connecticut
6.4. Moving and Transferring the Case
6.5. Appeal After a Denial
7. Russian-Speaking Applicants With Multiple Citizenships
7.1. Central Asia Plus Russia
7.2. When the Second Citizenship May No Longer Exist
7.3. Russia Plus Ukraine
7.4. Israel
7.5. CIS Countries That Do Not Recognize Dual Citizenship
8. Conclusion
9. Table of Precedents and Legal Authorities
At the center of this discussion is the BIA’s 2013 precedential decision in Matter of B-R-.
The BIA held that an applicant with multiple citizenships must prove persecution, as U.S. law understands it, in each country of citizenship. No fear of the second country — no refugee status.
This rule applies throughout the United States except in three states. In 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit — covering New York, Connecticut, and Vermont — refused to follow Matter of B-R- in Zepeda-Lopez v. Garland, calling its interpretation wrong.
In those three states, it is enough to prove persecution in only one country of citizenship. As a result, in practice, an applicant gets multiple chances to win. For example, a citizen of both Russia and Ukraine only needs to prove persecution either in Russia or in Ukraine.
For the rest of the country, the rule is different: persecution must be proven in both countries. In practice, that means a passport you have never used can sink the entire case — even if the persecution in one country is completely real.
First, it helps to remember where asylum in the United States came from and how multiple citizenships fit into that system.
The modern law of refugee status begins in 1951. After World War II, the countries of the United Nations adopted the Refugee Convention.
Under the Convention, a refugee is a person who fled his country and cannot return because of persecution by the government or its agents. His own country will no longer protect him. In that situation, someone else must provide protection, and asylum is the substitute for that failed protection.
Not a bonus. Not a way to choose a better or richer country. A last resort.
Also under the Convention, citizens of multiple countries cannot be considered refugees if even one of those countries is willing to accept and protect them. The logic is simple: that person still has protection.
In 1980, Congress transferred the refugee definition into U.S. immigration law almost word for word. But the Convention’s separate paragraph dealing with multiple citizenships did not make it into the U.S. statute.
Still, the definition itself contains an opening. Read literally, INA § 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) defines a refugee as a person outside “any country of such person’s nationality” who is unable to return to the protection of “that country.”
That language can be read in different ways. And this is where the BIA stepped in with its 2013 precedential decision in Matter of B-R-.
The respondent in Matter of B-R- was a Venezuelan journalist during the Hugo Chávez era. Because of his consistent criticism of the government, he began to face persecution and was eventually forced to flee. After reaching the United States, he applied for asylum.
DHS did not dispute the persecution itself — it was most likely real. But there was one problem.
The respondent’s father was Spanish, and under Spanish law the son automatically had Spanish citizenship by birth. No one had persecuted him in Spain, and he did not claim otherwise.
As a result, asylum was denied. Over time, that denial became a BIA precedent that applies in almost every state.
The Board’s reasoning follows the text of the Convention closely. Asylum is available only to those who have no protection at all, in any country. If you do have protection — even if it is not in the country where you want to live — then you are not a refugee.
That is how the rule that still applies today emerged. If an applicant is a citizen of multiple countries, the applicant must prove persecution in each of them, separately, so that no protection remains in any country.
There is another way to win: convince the judge that the second country’s protection exists only on paper. The country will not admit you, will not issue documents, or will not recognize you as its citizen at all. The passport exists — but the protection does not.
And proving all of this is the applicant’s burden. Not the government’s. No one can change that: not the judge, not the prosecutor, and not your lawyer.
But the government must prove the existence of the second citizenship itself. Speculation, or the possibility of obtaining another citizenship someday, is not enough.
That is easy if you bring two passports yourself. But if there is no second passport, there may be no problem.
The Second Circuit disagreed with the BIA’s interpretation.
In 2022, in Zepeda-Lopez v. Garland, the court held that the statute, as written, refers to the country of citizenship in the singular. In the court’s view, there is no ambiguity. That means persecution must be proven in only one country, even if the applicant has multiple citizenships.
In support of that conclusion, the court pointed to the Convention’s separate paragraph on multiple citizenships — the same paragraph that did not make it into the text of the U.S. statute.
The court called Matter of B-R- “manifestly contrary to the plain text of the statute.” As a result, the B-R- rule no longer applies in the Second Circuit.
As a result, the United States now has a split system.
In every state except New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, an asylum applicant must prove persecution — as the law defines it — in every country of citizenship capable of providing protection. That is unquestionably harder.
In the Second Circuit, there is no need to prove persecution everywhere. One country is enough.
As a result, in practice, applicants in the Second Circuit get multiple chances to win. If the Russia claim does not work, they can try Ukraine. The reason for the difference is how the statute is interpreted.
Those who fall under the jurisdiction of New York, Vermont, and Connecticut probably should not expect the rule to change — and that is good news.
After Zepeda-Lopez, the government could have sought rehearing by the full court — en banc — or appealed to the Supreme Court. It did neither.
Why? Most likely because of the risk of losing: a loss in the Supreme Court could have made the “one-country” rule the rule for the entire country. Given the ambiguity in the statute, that is entirely possible.
So in the Second Circuit, things will most likely remain as they are.
The situation is more complicated in other states. The BIA itself is unlikely to reconsider its decision. Back in 2023, soon after Zepeda-Lopez, many stakeholders asked it to revisit the issue. More than three years have passed. There has been no answer, and given the overall policy today, there probably will not be one.
There are also no class actions or other proceedings that could change the situation for everyone.
Still, individual applicants can appeal in their own federal circuits, and since 2024 they have had a real chance to put the question back before a court.
The reason is the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision, which eliminated the old rule under which courts had to defer to a permissible agency interpretation when the statute itself was ambiguous. Now each court reads the statute for itself.
Now each court reads the statute for itself, which potentially opens the door to reconsideration. Any federal circuit could one day take a case involving an applicant with two citizenships and decide the issue again — from a clean slate.
There is no guarantee that courts will side with applicants. Since 2024, courts have more often upheld old rules than struck them down. But the door is open.
First, build the case around persecution in every country of citizenship, even if you live in New York or another state within the Second Circuit.
This approach gives you multiple chances to win and also protects you in case of a forced transfer to another circuit. For example, you could be taken into detention and transferred to Louisiana. We have seen that happen in our practice.
Yes, this can make the case significantly more expensive: for example, you may need to hire two experts. But it can also substantially increase your chances of winning.
It also makes sense to prepare an argument against such a transfer in advance.
For all other states, this approach is a necessity. The law requires it.
Next, prepare an alternative argument that the additional countries, despite the passport, will not provide you with protection.
This is difficult, but in the context of the Russia–Ukraine conflict, it is possible.
If you are only planning a move, seriously consider settling in New York, Vermont, or Connecticut — even if your friends, relatives, or acquaintances live in other states.
Winning the case in these states is significantly easier, and you can move later, after the court has acquired jurisdiction over your case. Once hearing dates are set, cases are rarely transferred.
If you are already in the United States, you can consider moving and transferring the case to one of these states.
At an early stage, especially if nothing has happened in the case yet, this is possible. If there has not yet been a master calendar hearing, a regular motion to change venue based on the move is generally enough.
If the master hearing has already taken place, something has already been done on the merits, or an individual hearing has been scheduled, the situation is more complicated. A lot depends on the judge.
The judge may deny the transfer if the judge believes it is being requested only because it is easier to win in the Second Circuit. This is called forum shopping, and the U.S. court system does not look favorably on it.
So if there has already been meaningful activity in the case, it is better to discuss the transfer with a lawyer in advance.
Finally, you need to be prepared to appeal if the case is denied.
You will most likely not win this issue before the BIA — Matter of B-R- remains binding precedent. But in federal court, the chance is real, especially after Zepeda-Lopez.
The main argument is that, read literally, the statute requires persecution in only one country, while Congress did not include in the U.S. statute the Convention paragraph requiring an analysis of every country of citizenship.
Unfortunately, this route will not be cheap — it costs money. But the alternative may be leaving the United States.
The first common combination is citizenship in a Central Asian country plus Russia.
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan: hundreds of thousands of people came to Russia for work and eventually obtained Russian passports. The old passport stayed in a drawer.
Russia has an official dual-citizenship agreement with Tajikistan — the only such agreement Russia has. So dual citizenship there is normal.
But there are solutions. First, applicants from Central Asia are often able to prove persecution in both countries and, given the close ties between those countries, often based on the same facts. The grounds can involve politics, religion, or a social group.
The Russia–Ukraine conflict has only added more possible grounds. Russia, in different forms, persecutes people who refuse to support the aggression against Ukraine and can reach people across borders. Tajikistan cooperates with Russia on this issue.
We also know the reverse situation from our practice: Russia may refuse to protect one of its citizens who also holds citizenship in an Asian country if, for example, that person is persecuted at home on religious grounds.
These are all viable, though not simple, options — and these cases can be won.
Second, the other citizenship may simply no longer exist.
Many people obtained Russian passports through the Compatriots Resettlement Program. One of the program’s conditions is residence in the region that accepted you. Violate the condition, and the citizenship can be revoked.
We have exactly such a case in our office: the person apparently lost Russian citizenship because he did not live in the required city. Acquired citizenship can also be lost for other reasons.
There is one problem: direct proof is usually unavailable in these cases. Russia does not issue certificates stating that citizenship was lost. So the issue has to be proven through experts on Russian law or Russian attorneys.
Yes, that means more expense. But often the expert opinion is what decides the entire case.
The second common combination is Ukrainian and Russian citizenship.
Here the situation is even more complicated, and you have to proceed carefully. If this is your situation, it makes sense to seriously consider the Second Circuit: New York, Connecticut, or Vermont.
If that is not possible, there are several options.
First, in rare cases, an argument that acquired citizenship was lost may be available, although here it is more difficult than in the Tajikistan context. You will definitely need an expert.
Second, you can argue: “the second country will not protect me.” This is more realistic than, say, in a Tajikistan case, but you will still need a good expert.
We know of at least one case from colleagues in which the court accepted the argument that, if returned to Russia, the person would be sent to the front in Ukraine instead of receiving protection.
The person lost asylum — neither military service nor the front line, by themselves, amount to persecution — but won CAT protection under the Convention Against Torture.
I would not say this happens often. But it is an option.
Finally, you can try to prove direct persecution in both countries. In our experience, these cases are very, very difficult to win.
The last common combination is Israel.
If you have made aliyah and already have an Israeli passport in your pocket, you will also have to prove persecution in Israel. The task is, frankly, almost impossible.
But if you are simply Jewish and could make aliyah only in theory, that is not citizenship.
The right to a passport is not a passport.
And the government cannot require you to prove “persecution in Israel.”
And one last point. Some CIS countries do not recognize dual citizenship at all: after obtaining a Russian passport, you may have lost your previous citizenship by operation of law.
If that is your situation, you may simply no longer have a second citizenship.
But this has to be proven with documents.
So before applying for asylum, figure out how many citizenships you actually have.
The Matter of B-R- rule makes a second citizenship a critical issue in an asylum case. In most of the United States, persecution in one country is not enough if another country of citizenship is willing to accept and protect you.
In the Second Circuit — New York, Connecticut, and Vermont — the rule is different after Zepeda-Lopez: it is enough to prove persecution in one country of citizenship.
So prepare the case for every country in advance, check which citizenships you actually still have, and consider the argument that the second country will not provide real protection.
If the case has already been denied specifically because of multiple citizenships, be prepared for a federal appeal.
Matter of B-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 119 (BIA 2013) — an applicant with multiple citizenships who does not have a fear of persecution in one country of citizenship does not meet the refugee definition under INA § 101(a)(42) and is not eligible for asylum. The rule applies in almost the entire country.
Zepeda-Lopez v. Garland, 38 F.4th 315 (2d Cir. 2022) — the Second Circuit refused to follow Matter of B-R- and held that an applicant with multiple citizenships only needs to prove persecution in one country of citizenship. The decision applies in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.
Supreme Court decision of June 28, 2024 — eliminated the previous rule requiring deference to a permissible administrative-agency interpretation of an ambiguous statute. That is why individual applicants now have an opportunity to raise the statutory-interpretation issue again in their own federal circuits.
INA § 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) — the definition of “refugee” in U.S. immigration law. The difference between Matter of B-R- and Zepeda-Lopez comes from different readings of this language as applied to people with multiple citizenships.
1951 Refugee Convention — the international foundation of the refugee definition. The Convention separately addresses multiple citizenships; the corresponding separate paragraph was not incorporated into U.S. law.
← Home, Russian version, Blog