This article discusses how The United States
Board of Immigration Appeals treats asylum
claims made based on forced sterilization
differently from those based on past female
genital mutilation (FGM). While involuntary
sterilization is considered automatic ground
for asylum, the treatment of claims for
asylum made on the basis of FGM is
inconsistent. The article discusses the
development of the different approaches and
offers five reasons for the difference:
gender bias, realpolitik, ideological
pressure, cultural justifications, and
temporal considerations. The author argues