Virginia Ponder, a student in Professor Birdsong’s spring Refugee Law seminar, has written an excellent paper that examines whether a parent who opposes female genital mutilation, and fears the mutilation of her child, raises a valid claim for protection under U.S. asylum law? The circuit court responses thus far have been diverse. Ms. Ponder has given permission to post her paper on the blog. Read it and see what you think.
THE DILEMMA OF PARENT-CHILD
FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION JURISPRUDENCE
Virginia L. Ponder
God has blessed me. He made me suffer but He also blessed me.
I am safe and free in America, surrounded by people who love me.
Others are not so fortunate. They are being held in prisons, being
denied asylum, and being sent back to terrible forms of suffering.
My friends, all the friends I made in prison, cried for joy for me
the day I walked into freedom. [1] I. Introduction
Almost fourteen years ago in the landmark decision In re Kasinga[2], the Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest administrative authority interpreting asylum law, found Female Genital Mutilation[3] (FGM) to be a form of persecution warranting a finding of asylum. Kasinga’s claim was based on the risk she would be subjected to FGM if returned to her home country and the decision established basic doctrine favorable to such a claim.[4] It was a milestone in the consideration of gender related asylum cases and advanced protection for women who fear FGM. Currently a new question regarding FGM is circulating in our immigration courts. Does a parent who opposes FGM, and fears the mutilation of her child, raise a valid claim for protection under U.S. asylum law? The circuit court responses thus far have been diverse.
The “parent-child FGM issue” most commonly presents itself when a non-US citizen parent asserts asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under Convention Against Torture [5](CAT) because she fears her US citizen or resident daughter will