Khasminskaya

Khasminskaya v. Lum

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 686·47 Cal. App. 4th 537·54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 915·96 Daily Journal DAR 8669·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5356
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 18, 1996A072388California3,035 words

Opinion

Opinion

Peterson, J.

In this case, we hold that applicants for political asylum do not qualify for general assistance (GA) benefits, because they are not “lawfully resident” under Welfare and Institutions Code section 17000 (section 17000) until their asylum applications are granted. We also reject the contention that constitutional principles of equal protection require the payment of general assistance benefits to persons who are not “lawfully resident” in this country.

Respondent Tsilia Khasminskaya came to the United States as a visitor, and later applied for political asylum. While her asylum application was pending, respondent also sought GA benefits from appellant Alameda County Social Services Agency (the county). Respondent was denied GA benefits on the grounds that she was not yet “lawfully resident” as is required by the provisions of section 17000. Respondent then brought this proceeding seeking a writ of mandate requiring the county to pay her GA benefits, and the trial court granted the petition.

We reverse the trial court’s ruling following precedent established by other appellate courts. We hold that applicants for asylum, such as respondent, do not thereby become “lawfully…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.