African Union Adopts Algiers Declaration Classifying Colonialism as Crimes Against Humanity

(ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA) — A new African Union resolution tied to the Algiers Declaration aims to reframe slavery, deportation, and colonialism as crimes against humanity and genocide, but it does not automatically change U.S., Australian, or UAE immigration law—so the real “process” for immigrants and advocates is how to verify it, document it, and (where appropriate) use it as supporting context in existing legal frameworks.

1) Overview: what the AU adopted, and what the Algiers Declaration is doing

On February 15, 2026, the African Union (AU) adopted a summit-level resolution at its 39th Ordinary Summit in Addis Ababa. The resolution—described as part of the Algiers Declaration framework—states that the transatlantic slave trade, colonial-era deportations, and colonialism should be treated as crimes against humanity and genocide against the peoples of Africa.

In AU discourse, that classification is meant to do two things at once:

• Political consolidation: align member states around a shared narrative and policy agenda on historical justice.
• Legal framing: place “deportation,” slavery, and colonialism into categories recognized in international criminal law, even where direct adjudication is not immediately available.

Important limit up front: AU resolutions can be influential, but they generally do not create binding rules inside non-member states. They can shape diplomacy, soft-law debates, and advocacy. They do not, by themselves, change eligibility for visas, asylum, or relief in the United States, Australia, or the United Arab Emirates.

2) What the AU resolution directs inside the AU framework (symbolic vs. actionable)

The resolution’s mandates can be read as a mix of commemoration, agenda-setting, and institution-building.

First, the AU designated a continental remembrance day intended to honor victims and “martyrs” of slavery, colonialism, and apartheid. This is primarily symbolic, but symbols often matter in international forums because they standardize language for later negotiations.

Second, AU leadership announced plans to present the resolution to the U.N. General Assembly in early 2026. The General Assembly cannot “convict” states of international crimes, but it can influence:

• what issues receive sustained diplomatic attention,
• what language appears in future resolutions,
• and what “soft-law” expectations become mainstream.

Third, the AU tied the resolution to prior AU work on reparations and the return of cultural property, using a framework approach that can support future submissions, studies, and coordinated claims. A framework typically helps with coordination and documentation. It does not guarantee that any external court will enforce payment.

3) The practical process for immigration readers: how to use (and not misuse) the resolution

What this process accomplishes: it helps immigrants, employers, and advocates separate moral authority from legal authority, and decide whether the AU text belongs in a filing as background evidence, expert support, or country-conditions context.

Step-by-step (with forms/documents and decision points)

1. Obtain and authenticate the primary text
   • Documents: the AU press release and the underlying resolution/communiqué text.
   • Why it matters: immigration adjudicators care about what the document actually says, and who issued it.
   • Decision point: if you cannot get the underlying text, use the press release cautiously and label it clearly as secondary.
2. Map the AU language to the legal standard you must meet
   • U.S. examples:
   • Asylum (INA § 208) and withholding (INA § 241(b)(3)) require a nexus to a protected ground and individualized risk.
   • CAT protection requires likelihood of torture by, or with acquiescence of, officials. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16–1208.18.
   • Documents: a short legal memo or declaration explaining relevance.
   • Decision point: if the resolution is only a moral statement and does not show individualized risk, it may belong in background only.
3. Place the resolution where it fits procedurally
   • If you are in Immigration Court (EOIR):
   • Forms: EOIR-28 (attorney appearance), or EOIR-33 (address updates).
   • Filing: submit as an exhibit with a witness/expert declaration if needed.
   • If you are affirmatively filing asylum with USCIS:
   • Form: Form I-589 (Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal).
   • Filing: include as part of country-conditions evidence, not as the main proof.
   • If you need to reopen a case:
   • Authority: 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (BIA) or § 1003.23 (Immigration Court).
   • Documents: motion brief, new evidence, proof of service.
   • Decision point: the AU resolution alone may not qualify as “new material evidence” unless tied to changed conditions or new risks.
4. Build the evidentiary record the way adjudicators expect
   • Immigration cases often turn on corroboration and clear exhibits. See Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722 (BIA 1997).
   • Documents (as relevant): declarations, medical records, arrest records, expert reports, NGO reports, news coverage, and identity documents.
   • Decision point: if an exhibit is inflammatory or overbroad, it can distract from the required legal elements.
5. Track timelines and plan for delays
   • Typical reality: asylum and Immigration Court timelines vary widely by location and docket.
   • Delays may come from: continuances, translation needs, expert scheduling, government shutdown risks, or backlogs.
   • The contemporaneous U.S. context includes a mid-February 2026 funding dispute affecting DHS operations, plus early-2026 shifts affecting certain humanitarian programs and heightened scrutiny of detention conditions. Those developments can affect scheduling and logistics, but they do not convert the AU resolution into binding U.S. law.
6. If you have Australia or UAE exposure, treat the AU text as context, not a “rule”
   • Australia: protection visa decisions can consider country information and international materials, but the legal test still turns on Australian statutes and guidance.
   • UAE: residency cancellation, removal, or entry bans are typically administrative. The AU resolution may matter diplomatically, but it is not a direct legal defense by itself.
   • Decision point: if your case spans multiple countries, coordinate strategy early to avoid inconsistent statements across filings.

Warning: Do not claim the AU resolution “prohibits” U.S. deportations as a matter of U.S. law. Overstating legal effect can damage credibility in court and in sworn statements.

4) Common mistakes that trigger denials or credibility problems

• Treating “deportation” as a single concept. In U.S. law, removability, relief eligibility, and prosecutorial discretion are separate questions.
• Using the resolution as the centerpiece rather than meeting the statutory elements (nexus, individualized risk, bars, deadlines).
• Missing deadlines, including the asylum one-year filing rule (with limited exceptions). INA § 208(a)(2)(B).
• Submitting exhibits without translations or without clear sourcing.

Deadline note: If you may be subject to the one-year asylum filing deadline, get individualized legal advice immediately. Exceptions exist, but they are narrow and fact-specific.

5) Verification: where to check official texts and U.S. agency guidance

Readers should verify claims because misstatements can affect eligibility, enforcement risk, and timelines.

• For AU materials, start with the African Union newsroom.
• For binding USCIS guidance, use the USCIS Policy Manual (not social media summaries): USCIS Policy Manual
• For U.S. foreign policy context related to Africa, consult the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs.

Cross-checking matters because neither DHS nor USCIS automatically adopts foreign regional resolutions as controlling authority. In most U.S. filings, the AU resolution is best treated as background context that may support, but rarely substitutes for, the required legal showing.

When to hire counsel: If you are in removal proceedings, have criminal history, face detention, need a motion to reopen, or your facts involve multiple countries (U.S./Australia/UAE), consult a qualified immigration attorney. Strategy errors can be hard to fix later.

⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.

Resources:

• AILA Lawyer Referral
• EOIR Immigration Court information: EOIR Immigration Court information