In 1951, world leaders came together to sign the Refugee Convention, making a promise that people fleeing persecution would have the right to seek safety. On the 75th anniversary of the Convention, CGRS is publishing a series of interviews with CGRS team members on the landscape of the global asylum system today and their work with CGRS to defend the principles enshrined in the Convention.

CGRS interns are conducting, transcribing, and publishing these interviews. To learn more about working with CGRS, see our Career Opportunities page.

Interviews have been edited for clarity and concision.

The following interview is with our Associate Director of Litigation, Neela Chakravartula. Neela came to CGRS after working for four years as a staff attorney at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where she researched and reviewed cases raising claims for asylum and related forms of relief. Neela also worked in New York City for three years representing clients in a variety of civil matters. Neela began her legal career as a judicial law clerk for a judge of the Ninth Circuit. Learn more about Neela here.

Q: You've spent your career working in refugee and asylum law across several different settings. What experience has most influenced the way you approach your work today?

A: All the different positions I’ve held have made me the lawyer that I am today. Working directly with clients taught me to understand the individual – the personal stakes involved in a case and how vital the legal process is in someone’s life. Working in the Court of Appeals gave me a distinct perspective on how immigration cases are handled in the courts. These experiences, in addition to my current role, strongly shape how I practice today. 

Q: What motivated your transition from the Ninth Circuit to actively litigating cases here at CGRS, and how did that experience at the Ninth Circuit shape your current approach to preparing cases and litigating for clients? 

A: I’ve wanted to work in immigration for a long time, and was fortunate enough to start at the court. The court was a great training ground to see how immigration cases are handled across the system. Your role there is distinct; you often realize you aren’t seeing the full picture of a person’s case. Transitioning to CGRS not only allowed me to take part in building well-developed cases from the ground up and assisting other attorneys doing the same. Participating in the full process as a litigator is not only intellectually engaging, but deeply satisfying for someone driven by advocacy. 

Q: Impact litigation is rarely a straightforward path to victory. Looking back at the work you've closely followed, has there been a specific legal setback or a landmark win that not only influenced legal precedent, but ultimately changed public understanding and helped build momentum for future asylum rights? 

A: I try to stay really mindful that our work is only one piece of the puzzle, certainly not the whole story of how social change happens. When faced with bad decisions and legal setbacks, it helps to remember that. The win or loss in court does not define the win or loss for the movement. Often, the most powerful outcome of these cases is how they bring people together – building lasting partnerships among advocates, attorneys, and people on the ground who will continue to work together in the future. 

I also think it's important to remember that public understanding isn’t just shaped by the court. Legal setbacks and wins are both going to be part of a broader historical arc. 

Q: As we commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the Refugee Convention, what do you believe is its lasting legacy and do you think there are any principles from the convention that deserve greater attention in today’s asylum landscape?

A: We have an obligation to not return people to a place where their life or freedom would be threatened. This isn’t a particularly high bar, and it’s really tragic that we are backsliding on this. How can we get back to this fundamental point? This anniversary is a good time to pause, reflect, and remember that the Convention was the culmination of efforts of people and governments who came together in the aftermath of terrible atrocities, to say concretely that human life has inherent value, and there are steps we all will take to protect it. We adopted this as part of our domestic law decades ago and are bound to uphold it.

Q: With millions of displaced individuals globally, how can the U.S. better honor the Convention? 

A: I think the United States is falling short, even though we like to think of ourselves as a moral leader. But turning people away at the border, sending people to third countries, and interpreting the Refugee Convention in the most miserly way isn’t a great way to lead. Furthermore, we don’t look enough to other countries to see how they interpret Convention language. We need to be more open to broader interpretations of the Convention and be a more generous country ourselves. We should strive to be a global leader while learning from how generous other nations are in accepting refugees and asylum seekers. 

Q: Impact litigation often involves long timelines and significant challenges. What keeps you grounded and motivated during periods when legal protections for asylum seekers face increasing pressure?

A: Impact litigation can take a really long time, which is one of the reasons why we can’t put all our eggs in the litigation basket. But also, like I said earlier, it’s one tool in a larger struggle.  We need to embrace and employ multiple strategies simultaneously over time to effect real change. I stay motivated by working with amazing and creative colleagues both at CGRS and elsewhere, learning about how many different strategies people are using to protect the right to seek asylum and to protect asylum seekers themselves.

Q: So you could agree that we need more levers to collectively push for change?

A: We have to embrace different strategies and work with different partners. A legal win can be wiped out instantly, as we’ve seen in the Supreme Court. Therefore, success must be more sustained than a single legal decision that can easily be overturned. Shifting public opinion as mentioned earlier is the lasting change we truly need. 

Q: Looking ahead, what gives you the most hope for the future of asylum and refugee protection? 

A: The people I work with, and for. It’s rewarding to be part of a long struggle for immigrants’ and refugee rights, to work with people who have been passionate about immigration issues since far before I started working at CGRS, and to welcome in people who are more recently mobilized by seeing and experiencing how unfair our immigration policies are, people who are undaunted by the current state of affairs - or who are daunted but move forward anyways. All of this gives me hope.