CUT IT OUT, AMERICA: DOES THE SHRINKING ELIGIBILITY OF ASYLUM FOR PRIVATE ACTIONS PULL BACK ON FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION ASYLUM RIGHTS?

In two recent decisions issued by the Attorney General of the United States, asylum rights have diminished for private actions. The Attorney General held in In re A-B- that private actions, such as domestic violence or gang related violence, would almost never qualify as the basis for asylum relief. Additionally, in In re L-E-A-, the Attorney General rendered a similar holding for memberships to a nuclear family. These decisions threaten the viability of other asylum claims relating to private actions such as female genital mutilation (FGM). Because family members or traditional elders in the community perform FGM rather than a public or governmental entity, asylum is threatened by the decisions narrowing private action asylum eligibility. To solve this problem, Congress should amend the Refugee Act, as it did for involuntary sterilization and forced abortion in 1996, by making FGM per se persecution based on the protected category of membership to a particular social group. FGM and involuntary sterilization or forced abortion share many similarities in that they are both severe human rights violations, and they create long-lasting and painful consequences for their victims. Thus, they should be treated similar under the Refugee Act so that FGM victims, potential victims, and parents of potential victims may enjoy a recourse for asylum relief