Newark, N.J. – The Center for Social Justice at Seton Hall Law School, joined by U.S. Representatives Steven Rothman (D-Bergen) and Chris Smith (R-Mercer), has called on Attorney General Michael Mukasey to reverse a recent decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals that denies asylum to victims of female genital mutilation (FGM). The Board’s decision is inconsistent with its own rulings in prior cases involving FGM. Legal experts also fear it will result in a significant reversal of U.S. policy on the treatment of women in the asylum process. Seton Hall Law clinic professors have joined the legal team appealing the decision in court.

Female genital mutilation is a traditional practice in many developing countries whereby women and girls are forcibly subjected to the cutting and/or removal of their genitalia, often resulting in a lifetime of serious health problems, including the risk of death at childbirth. On September 27, 2007, the Board of Immigration Appeals, the federal agency responsible for the interpretation of federal immigration law, issued a precedent-setting decision which held that women who have been subjected to FGM have no claim to asylum because they already have experienced the procedure and, therefore, have no reason to fear its repetition. The Board does not apply similar reasoning to victims of other types of persecution.

“The Board’s decision is terribly flawed,” said Jenny-Brooke Condon, Assistant Clinical Professor at the Center for Social Justice. “The Board misconstrued the nature of FGM, failing to recognize that FGM is not a one-time act, but is often a lifetime sentence in a woman’s society of origin. After the inhumane and life-threatening procedure takes place, victims of FGM are often subjugated in their societies and marriage and deprived of sexual identity.”

“Women’s rights are human rights,” said Congressman Rothman, who is working with Seton Hall to stop the deportation of victims of genital mutilation. “The Board of Immigration Appeals should not be allowed to alter U.S. policy regarding gender-based persecution without any legislative debate or action, public comment period, or national security justification from the Department of Homeland Security.”

The specific case involves Alima Traore, a 28-year-old woman from Mali, whose family subjected her to FGM involving complete excision of her genitalia when she was a child. Traore suffers from severe physical and mental scars as result of her past persecution. She also fears being subjected to additional future persecution in the form of forced marriage to her cousin upon her return to Mali—a continuation and extension of the persecution that began with the act of FGM.

Seton Hall Law Fights for Justice for Women

Condon and clinical Professor Bryan Lonegan have joined as co-counsel to Traore’s lawyer, Ron Richey, along with volunteer attorneys from the law firm of Hughes Hubbard and Reed, in New York City, who have agreed to take on Ms. Traore’s case pro bono, on appeal to the Fourth Circuit.

Condon and Lonegan are also working with Reps. Rothman and Smith to put political pressure on the Administration to reverse the Board’s decision. In a letter to Attorney General Mukasey, Rothman and Smith echoed Condon’s concerns on the treatment of FGM victims and took issue with the Board’s dismissive attitude toward forced marriage:

“By suggesting that Ms. Traore would not be disadvantaged by the forced marriage to a relative, the Board dismissed her opposition to her fate and ignored evidence establishing that women subjected to forced marriage in Mali often suffer abuse and are powerless to extricate themselves from abusive marriages. The Board’s indifference to those deprivations of women’s rights is deeply troubling,” said Lonegan.

Stopping A Retreat from Progress

The Board’s recent decision is a significant retreat from progress in the United States’ recognition of human rights violations impacting women. In 1995, in a landmark decision, the Board, in Matter of Kasinga, recognized that women fearing FGM are eligible for asylum because the act of FGM is a severe human rights violation that amounts to persecution and individuals subjected to the practice are singled out for harm on account of characteristics protected by the Refugee Act. In its recent decision from September, the Board retreated from that momentous decision, suggesting that women who have already been subjected to FGM are not deserving of asylum protection irrespective of the future harms FGM victims face in their country of origin.

In addition to the appeal to the federal court, a coalition of law school clinics, legal advocates, and legal experts from around the country have joined forces and filed a written request to urge Mukasey to reverse the Board’s decision and file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which will hear an appeal of the Board’s decision.

The coalition includes clinical professors from Seton Hall Law, Arizona State, Ave Maria, Boston University, Brooklyn Law, Chapman, Cornell, Florida State, George Washington, Harvard, Hastings, Hofstra, New England School of Law, New York University, Notre Dame, St. John's, Southern New England, and the universities of Chicago, Connecticut, Houston, LaVerne, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and St. Thomas.

“The United States has an obligation to honor the rights of women who are fortunate enough to seek protection of their rights abroad,“ said Condon. “The U.S. must not turn its back on these courageous women who seek protection and recognition of their right to autonomy and bodily integrity.”

###

The only private law school in New Jersey, Seton Hall University School of Law was founded in 1951, and is located in the city of Newark. Seton Hall Law School offers both day and evening programs leading to the Juris Doctor (J.D.), Master of Laws (LL.M.) and Master of Science in Jurisprudence (M.S.J.) degrees. For more information on Seton Hall Law School, visit law.shu.edu.