Background information
on gender and asylum issues

 

Campaign to Reverse Matter of A-T- and defend women’s rights

Background
Advocacy
Media
Legal Resources
Other Resources

 

Update

In a tremendous victory for women’s rights, on September 22, 2008 Attorney General Mukasey vacated the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board), known as Matter of A-T-, which had denied withholding to a woman from Mali who had suffered past female genital cutting (FGC). Matter of A-T- had been seen as a blow to the protection of women’s rights and had been the subject of an intense public campaign, as well as litigation effort to have it reversed. The Attorney General’s decision, vacating Matter of A-T- and finding that the Board's legal analysis was flawed, adopts arguments successfully made by the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) in a related case, Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99 (2nd Cir. 2008). CGRS played a key role in coordinating the campaign to reverse Matter of A-T-, and filed an amicus brief in the case at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit appeal did not move forward because the Attorney General remanded the decision back to the Board, with guidance as to the legal errors that it had committed.

In June 2009, the Board issued a new decision adopting the legal framework for cases of past FGC set out in the Attorney General’s decision, and remanding Matter of A-T- to the immigration court for a new hearing and decision based on the correct legal framework. The Attorney General’s decision and the 2009 Board decision mean that women who have suffered past FGC may still qualify for refugee protection, depending on the evidence.

Related press coverage:

Trymaine Lee, Mukasey Vacates Panel's Decision Denying Asylum to Malian Woman. New York Times, September 23, 2008.

Terry Frieden, AG: Don't deport genital mutilation victim. CNN, September 22, 2008.

Richard Schmitt, Genital mutilation victim gets a new chance at asylum in U.S. Los Angeles Times, September 23, 2008.

Background

On September 27, 2007, the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board), the highest immigration court in the country, denied protection to Ms. A-T-, a 28 year-old woman from Mali who was subjected to female genital cutting (FGC) as a child, and who fears a forced marriage should she be sent back to her home country. She had requested asylum based on her past FGC and the ongoing harms it has caused her, as well as her fear of being forced to marry her cousin.

FGC is a traditional practice whereby women and girls are forcibly subjected to the cutting and/or removal of their genitalia, causing lifelong medical, psychological, and sexual complications. (UNICEF, “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting”, Amnesty International, “Female Genital Mutilation: A Fact Sheet”). 

Ms. A-T- continues to endure the consequences of her genital cutting, including suffering ongoing medical, psychological, and sexual problems. Despite this, the Board denied her case and ruled that victims of past FGC are generally ineligible for asylum because, unlike forced reproductive sterilization (which it had previously recognized as a permanent, ongoing harm), FGC only happens to a woman once. Because the act of genital cutting could not be repeated on Ms. A-T-, the Board found that the practice did not cause her – and does not cause women in general -- "ongoing harm." Contrary to international law, the court also rejected her forced marriage claim, characterizing the practice as harmless family tradition rather than persecution.

The Board's decision in Ms. A-T-'s case marked a significant and alarming departure from previous advances made for women's rights. Since 1995, the United States has been committed to ensuring gender-sensitivity in the adjudication of asylum claims. In 1996, the Board issued an historic decision, Matter of Kasinga, recognizing that FGC is a severe human rights violation that amounts to persecution and that women fleeing the practice are entitled to asylum in the U.S. Congress has since praised that decision and criminalized the practice of FGC in the U.S. The Board’s decision in Ms. A-T- ’s case signaled an unfortunate retreat in progress for women’s rights, and had a devastating impact on women's asylum claims based on past FGC.

Ms. A-T-'s case was appealed at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Women's rights, human rights, and refugee rights organizations wrote amicus ("friend of the court") briefs challenging the Board's decision, and demanding that women's rights to bodily integrity and autonomy be recognized as human rights. Medical and mental health professionals around the country were outraged by the Board's determination that FGC does not inflict enduring harm on a woman and also joined the amicus effort.

Advocacy

In addition to the legal challenge, CGRS led a national advocacy campaign to reverse the Board's decision. A bipartisan sign-on effort, sponsored by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) in the Senate requested that the Attorney General, who has the authority to review Board decisions, certify the case to himself in order to reconsider this unjust denial of protection to Ms. A-T-.

These efforts, together with letters from concerned citizens to their representatives in Congress, succeeded in urging the Attorney General to get involved and vacate the 2007 decision.

Advocacy Materials

• Letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey from members of the House of Representatives requesting reversal of In re A-T-
  
• Letter from Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, and John Conyers, Chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, to the Attorney General requesting reversal of In re A-T-
  
• Letter from the Association of the Bar of the City of New York to the Attorney General requesting reversal of In re A-T-
  
• Letter from Physicians for Human Rights volunteer doctors and psychologists discussing the permanent harms caused by FGC and asking the Attorney General to review the decision.
  
• Talking points on A-T- as well as U.S. commitment to women fleeing human rights violations abroad
  
• Sample letters to your representatives in congress:
  • Sample 1
  • Sample 2

Media

Trymaine Lee, Mukasey Vacates Panel's Decision Denying Asylum to Malian Woman. New York Times, September 23, 2008.

Terry Frieden, AG: Don't deport genital mutilation victim. CNN, September 22, 2008.

Richard Schmitt, Genital mutilation victim gets a new chance at asylum in U.S. Los Angeles Times, September 23, 2008.

Adam Liptak, Drawing a Line Between Enduring Harm and Legitimate Fear. November 5, 2007

Slate, Why Female Genital Mutilation Won’t Get You Asylum, by Bonnie Goldstein

Legal Resources

About Matter of A-T- and FGC asylum claims:

• BIA's 2009 decision
• Attorney General’s decision vacating Matter of A-T- (Sept. 2008)
• Article on recent developments in female genital cutting (FGC) jurisprudence by CGRS attorneys Lisa Frydman and Kim Thuy Seelinger
• BIA's 2007 decision
• Advisory
• Sample brief (contact CGRS using this form)
• Redacted motion to reconsider the 2007 decision
• Decision by federal judge in Canada finding that the U.S. is not a safe country for women refugees fleeing gender based persecution.

If you have a past FGC or parent-child FGC asylum case and need assistance please fill out our intake form here: http://cgrs.uchastings.edu/assistance/
We can provide legal advice, country conditions information, sample briefs and more.

Other Resources

About Female Genital Cutting:
UNICEF, Female Genital Mutilation, Cutting
Amnesty International: Stop violence against women, female genital mutilation
Health Risks and consequences
WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA statement
Childbirth risks