Get help
Log In
Help Defend Asylum
CGRS relies on the generous support of people like you to sustain our advocacy defending the human rights of refugees. Make a gift today!
In 2008, the U.S. Attorney General (AG) vacated a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in which the BIA denied protection (here, withholding of removal) to a woman from Mali who had suffered past female genital cutting. Immediately following the BIA’s initial decision in Matter of A-T-, women across the country who had pending claims based on past female genital cutting were denied protection. The BIA issued a new ruling, in 2009, outlining a legal framework for arguing that women who have suffered past female genital cutting may qualify for refugee protection. Ms. A.T. was granted protection in the United States in 2011. Although challenges continue to arise in these cases, the victory in Matter of A-T- preserves past female genital cutting as a basis for refugee protection.
CGRS Involvement
CGRS played a key role in coordinating the campaign to reverse the BIA’s initial decision in Matter of A-T-, and filed an amicus brief in the case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Our partners on this case were Ana Reyes and Amy Mason Saharia of Williams & Connolly; Mark Melodia, Margaret Sanner, and Lisa Baird of Reed Smith; and Dina Haynes, Professor of Law at New England School of Law. Ms. A.T. was represented by Ronald Richey of Rockville, Maryland, Bryan Lonegan and Jennifer Condon of Seton Hall’s Center for Social Justice, Sarah Loomis Cave of Hughes Hubbard, and Natalie Nanasi of Tahirih Justice Center.
Basic Facts
Ms. A.T. requested asylum based on the female genital cutting she was subjected to when she was a child in Mali and the ongoing medical, psychological, and sexual problems it caused her. She also feared being forced to marry her cousin.
Procedural History
An immigration judge denied protection to Ms. A.T. in 2005. In 2007, the BIA upheld the Judge's denial and ruled that victims of past female genital cutting are generally ineligible for asylum because, unlike forced reproductive sterilization (which it had previously recognized as a permanent, ongoing harm), genital cutting only happens to a woman once. Because the BIA held that the act of genital cutting could not be repeated, it found that the practice did not cause Ms. A.T. – 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.
Ms. A.T.'s case was appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Women's rights, human rights, and refugee rights organizations submitted amicus 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 female genital cutting does not inflict enduring harm on a woman and also joined the amicus effort. 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 Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Carl Levin (D-MI) requested that the AG, 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. Over 100 medical and mental health professionals also asked the AG to review the decision, as did the New York City Bar Association.
These efforts, together with letters from concerned citizens to their representatives in Congress, succeeded in urging the AG to become directly involved. The AG vacated Matter of A-T- and found that the Board's legal analysis was flawed, adopting arguments successfully made by CGRS in a related case, Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99 (2nd Cir. 2008). The Fourth Circuit appeal did not move forward because the AG remanded the decision back to the BIA, noting its legal errors. In June 2009, the BIA issued a new decision adopting the legal framework for cases of past female genital cutting 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. In April 2011, the Judge granted Ms. A.T. protection from deportation (withholding of removal).
Legal Documents
CGRS amicus brief to the Fourth Circuit on behalf of women's rights organizations.
Decisions
BIA 2009 decision, Matter of A-T-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 4 (BIA 2009)
AG’s 2008 decision vacating the BIA’s 2007 decision, Matter of A-T-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 617 (AG 2008)
BIA’s 2007 decision, Matter of A-T-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 296 (BIA 2007)
Advocacy Campaign
Letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey from Senators, sponsored by Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Carl Levein (D-MI), requesting reversal of In re A-T-
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:
Articles and Reports
Lisa Frydman and Kim Thuy Seelinger, Kasinga’s Protection Undermined? Recent Developments in Female Genital Cutting Jurisprudence, 13 Bender's Immigration Bulletin 1073 (2008).
News Coverage
Stephen Manning, “Woman from Mali who underwent circumcision fights for asylum” Associated Press, May 3, 2008
Alan Feuer, “Court Rejects Decisions of Immigration Board” New York Times, June 12, 2008
Matthew Hay Brown, “A right to asylum?” Baltimore Sun, July 8, 2008
Terry Frieden, “AG: Don’t deport genital mutilation victim,” CNN, September 23, 2008
Richard B. Schmitt, “Genital mutilation victim gets a new chance at asylum in U.S.” Los Angeles Times, September 23, 2008
William Fisher, “Asylum Courts Mishandled Gender Violence Case,” Inter Press Service News Agency, September 25, 2008
Trymaine Lee, “Mukasey Vacates Panel’s Decision Denying Asylum to Malian Woman,” New York Times, October 11, 2008
Zainab Zakari, “FGM Asylum Cases Forge New Legal Standing,” Women's E-news, November 25, 2008
Request Assistance in Your Case
For more information about this case, or to request other assistance from CGRS in your case, please fill out this form.
