Female circumcision and domestic violence asylum cases have been treated differently in the asylum system. The main explanation for differential adjudication has rested on racialized and ethnocentric constructions of harm. In this article, I examine differences between these cases by analyzing how gendered claims are constructed in female circumcision compared with domestic violence asylum claims. I identify three key themes (immutability, particularity, and universality) and show how they are linked to underlying gender ideologies in these cases. Findings suggest that gender ideology that relies on the biologically sexed body influences interpretations of gender-based asylum cases. Both female circumcision and domestic violence cases make explicit the underlying sex-based logics that operate in the construction of gender group claims, creating an advantage for women claiming asylum based on female circumcision and invoking the sexed body. Although the strategy of invoking the sexed body may benefit some applicants in the short term, these sex-based politics may hinder the development of gender asylum practice more generally.
Archaga-Ponce v. Attorney General (U.S. App. LEXIS 13517, 2011).
3.
BarrenoB. R. (2011). In search of guidance: An examination of past, present, and future adjudications of domestic violence asylum claims. Vanderbilt Law Review, 64, 225-270.
4.
BartlettK.T.1990. “Feminist Legal Methods.” Harvard Law Review, 103(4): 829-888.
5.
BookeyB. (2013). Domestic violence as a basis for asylum: An analysis of 206 case outcomes in the United States from 1994 to 2012. Hastings Women’s Law Journal, 24, 107-148.
6.
ButlerJ. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
CoffmanJ. E. (2007). Producing FGM in U.S. courts: Political asylum in the post-Kasinga era. Africa Today, 53(4), 59-84.
8.
CondonJ. B. (2002). Asylum law’s gender paradox. Seton Hall Law Review, 33, 207-256.
9.
DonatoK. M.GabacciaD.HoldawayJ.ManalansanM.IVPessarP. R. (2006). A glass half full: Gender and migration studies. International Migration Review, 40, 3-26.
10.
FanonF. (1965). A dying colonialism. New York, NY: Grove Press.
11.
FassinD.d’HalluinE. (2005). The truth from the body: Medical certificates as ultimate evidence for asylum seekers. American Anthropologist, 107, 597-608.
12.
FassinD.d’HalluinE. (2007). Critical evidence: The politics of trauma in French asylum politics. Ethos, 35, 300-329.
GoellerC. (2007). Forced marriage and the granting of asylum: A reason to hope after Gao v. Gonzales. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 14, 173-195.
18.
Hassan v. Gonzales (U.S. App. LEXIS 10781, 2007).
19.
HeymanM. G. (2008). Protecting foreign victims of domestic violence: An analysis of asylum regulations. New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 12, 115-149.
20.
HolmesR. (2007). African queen: The real life Hottentot Venus. New York, NY: Random House.
21.
HuebenE. A. (2001). Domestic violence and asylum law: The United States takes several remedial steps in recognizing gender-based persecution. University of Missouri Kansas City Law Review, 70, 453-469.
22.
Kaba v. Holder (U.S. App. LEXIS 25525, 2012).
23.
Kone v. Holder (U.S. App. LEXIS 3924, 2010).
24.
LugonesM. (2007). Heterosexualism and the colonial/modern gender system. Hypatia, 22(1), 186-219.
25.
Maatougui v. Holder (U.S. App. LEXIS 25674, 2013).
26.
MarsdenJ. (2014). Domestic violence asylum after matter of LR. Yale Law Journal, 123, 2134-2573.
27.
Matter of Acosta, A-24159781, Interim Decision 2986 (1985).
28.
Matter of Kasinga, A73476695, Interim Decision 3278 (1995).
29.
McClintockA. (1995). Imperial leather: Race, gender and sexuality in the colonial contest. New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
Mohammed v. Gonzales (U.S. App. LEXIS 4006, 2005).
31.
MohantyC. T. (1984). Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Boundary 2, 12/13, 333-358. doi:10.2307/302821
32.
MorrisseyR. (2012). Avoiding the rabbit hole: Formulating better requirements for domestic violence-based asylum claims. McGeorge Law Review, 43, 1121-1146.
33.
MusaloK. (2003). Revisiting social group and nexus in gender asylum claims: A unifying rationale for evolving jurisprudence. DePaul Law Review, 52, 777-808.
34.
MusaloK. (2010). A short history of gender asylum in the United States. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 29(2), 46-63.
35.
NjambiW. N. (2004). Dualisms and female bodies in representations of African female circumcision: A feminist critique. Feminist Theory, 5, 281-303.
36.
OxfordC. G. (2005). Protectors and victims in the gender regime of asylum. National Women Studies Association Journal, 17(3), 18-38.
37.
OyewumiO. (1997). The invention of women: Making African sense of Western gender discourse. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
38.
OyewumiO. (2005). Introduction: Gendering. In OyewumiO. (Ed.), Gender epistemologies in Africa: The gendering of African traditions, space, social identities and institutions (pp. 1-8). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
PetersonL. (2008). Shared dilemmas: Justice for rape victims under International Law and Protection for Rape Victims Seeking Asylum. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 31, 509-529.
40.
Ramirez-Alvarado v. Attorney General (U.S. App. LEXIS 802, 2011).RandallM. (2002). Refugee law and state accountability for violence against women: A comparative analysis of legal approaches to recognizing asylum claims based on gender persecution. Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 25, 281-318.
41.
SaidE. (1979). Orientalism. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
42.
SiddiquiS. (2010). Membership in a particular social group: All approaches open doors for women to qualify. Arizona Law Review, 52, 505-532.
43.
SinhaA. (2001). Domestic violence and U.S. asylum law: Eliminating the cultural hook for claims involving gender-related persecution. New York University Law Review, 76, 1562-1598.
