A Mexican woman who says she endured beatings and rapes for decades at the hands of her common-law husband has won the right to stay in the United States. Experts say the case makes clear that domestic violence is valid grounds for asylum.
For more, go here.
Thanks, Jender-Parents!
This is something I’ve been interested in since, at least, a great summer I spent at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Hastings law school a few years ago. (The people there were deeply involved in the foundational cases both on domestic violence (“Matter of R_ A_”) and FGM (Kasinga).) It’s important, however, to note that it’s slightly misleading to say that domestic abuse is “grounds for asylum”. It _can_ be, but only in certain settings. For example, if a woman in Canada is abused by her husband, flees to the U.S., and files an asylum claim, she will certainly not be granted asylum. For a case to be successful, the applicant needs to show several quite specific things about how women (or whatever group) are seen in the society as a whole (it can’t be a sub-set of the society in most cases), and how the police or other authorities respond. Merely ineffective response isn’t enough. While I disagree with lots of details in particular cases, I think the general idea is right, both as to the law and how refugee protection should work. This particular decision seems like a good one to me. But, it’s somewhat inaccurate to say that domestic abuse (in general) is grounds for asylum, as it’s not.
Thanks for the clarification, Matt!
No problem. “Non-state actor” cases in refugee/asylum law are some of the most difficult and confusing ones, and even immigration judges often get them wrong (not just on my understanding of what the law says, but on the understanding of courts of appeals, too.) But, it does seem that important and good things are developing in this area.