Background information
on gender and asylum issues4

 

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

Background
Advocacy, What you can do to help
Media
Legal Resources
Other Resources

Background

On September 27, 2007, the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board), the highest immigration court in the country, denied protection to Alima Traore, 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. Ms. Traore 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. Traore 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. Traore, 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. Traore's case (In re A-T-) marks 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. Traore’s case signals an unfortunate retreat in progress for women’s rights, and has already begun having a devastating impact on women's asylum claims based on past FGC.

Ms. Traore's case is currently on appeal at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Women's rights, human rights, and refugee rights organizations are writing 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 are outraged by the Board's determination that FGC does not inflict enduring harm on a woman and have also joined the amicus effort.

Advocacy

In addition to the legal challenge, CGRS is also leading 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), is underway in the Senate to request 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. Traore. The more Senators that sign on to the letter, the greater the pressure will be on the Attorney General to review the decision in Ms. Traore's case.

What you can do to help: As success in past campaigns has shown, making a quick phone call or sending an email truly does have the power to bring about positive changes for women refugees in need of protection.  Please contact your Senator to urge that he/she sign onto the letter requesting the Attorney General's review of In re A-T- by email or by calling the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Tell your Senator that:

• The BIA's decision in Matter of A-T- is a significant departure from the U.S.'s commitment to protect women's rights across the globe
• The BIA's reasoning in this case misconstrues the nature of FGC as simply a one-time act, rather than recognizing the severe ongoing medical and psychological harm that it causes, as well as its purpose to further subjugate women in society
• The BIA failed to recognize forced marriage as persecution, signaling a general hostility toward, and ignorance of, women's human rights
• The U.S. has a proud history of protecting the rights of women who are forced to flee grave human rights violations in their home countries.  We must not allow the U.S. to turn its back on the courageous women who simply wish to have their fundamental rights to autonomy and bodily integrity recognized

Urge him/her to sign onto the letter requesting that Attorney General Mukasey certify In re A-T- , by contacting Kevin Glandon in Senator Levin’s office at: (202) 224-9103 (Kevin_glandon@levin.senate.gov) or Dylan Williams in Senator Snowe’s office at: 202-224-5097 (Dylan_williams@snowe.senate.gov).

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

New York Times column on In re A-T- by 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 decision
• Advisory
• Sample brief (contact CGRS using this form)
• Redacted motion to reconsider in Alima's case
• 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