Unrepeatable Harms: Female Genital Mutilation and Involuntary Sterilization in U.S. Asylum Law

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 that involuntary sterilization and FGM should be treated the same and both should be grounds for asylum, holding that the current inconsistency in the law undermines the integrity of U.S. asylum policy. The article recommends two changes to address this issue: a statutory amendment to the current U.S. policy and an adoption of an integrated theoretical framework grounded in international human rights norms.

Carrie Acus Love, Unrepeatable Harms: Female Genital Mutilation and Involuntary Sterilization in U.S. Asylum Law (2008) 40:1 Colum HRL Rev 173.