Case #2994

Country of Origin: 
Type of persecution: 
Female Genital Cutting (FGC) / other mutilation
Female Genital Cutting - Fears FGC to a child
Female Genital Cutting - Past FGC
Gender of applicant: 
What procedural stage is your case at now?: 
Immigration Judge
IJ Name: 
Bennett, Michael H.
Has a decision ever been reached in this case?: 

Case Summary

IJ granted asylum on December 2007. Following the BIA's decisions in In re A-T- and In re A-K-, an Immigration Judge grants asylum to a woman based on past female genital cutting (FGC), as well as her fear that either her U.S. citizen daughter would be subjected to FGC if the family were forced to return to Ethiopia, or that she (and her family) would face ostracism rising to the level of persecution for rejecting the genital cutting of her daughter.

Date Submitted

Monday, August 16, 2004 - 00:00

Outcome for Case #2994

Immigration Judge
Date of Decision: 
Friday, May 30, 2014
IJ Outcome: 
Additional Information: 
The Judge held that Mohammed v. Gonzales controls in the 9th Circuit, despite the BIA's decision in A-T- (ruling that past FGC is not a basis for asylum). Under Mohammed, he found the Petitioner eligible for asylum based on the ongoing medical, psychological, and sexual harm she suffers as a result of her FGC, which he ruled was on account of her membership in the social group of "Ethiopian females." He also ruled that the Petitioner qualified for humanitarian asylum based on the severe and atrocious nature of FGC, as well as the reasonable possibility that she would face other serious harm in Ethiopia - her daughter's FGC. Finally, the IJ held that the applicant had a well founded fear of persecution (her daughter's FGC) based on her anti-FGC opinion and her social group membership. Distinguishing the case factually and legally from In re A-K- (where the BIA had denied protection to a father who feared his daughter's FGC) the Judge also granted the parent-child claim. He held that the genital cutting of the Petitioner's daughter would cause her agony sufficient to constitute persecution under 9th Circuit caselaw. The Judge also found that the ostracism the Petitioner would face for attempting to protect her daughter from FGC was so profound as to rise to the level of persecution. Either form of persecution, the Judge held, would be based on the Petitioner's anti-FGC political opinion, or her membership in the particular social group of "parents of Ethiopian females who oppose genital cutting and are from ethnic groups that practice it."
Appealed by Applicant: 
Appealed by DHS: