Rody Alvarado, whose case was blogged about on Alas multiple times a few years ago (such as here and here), has finally been granted asylum in the US.
In order to demonstrate a valid asylum claim, an asylum seeker must prove that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based upon his or her race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. It’s not enough for a victim of domestic violence to seek asylum based on fear that she will face recurrent violence if she returns to her country of origin. She also has to prove that her persecution is tied to one of the five statutory grounds. That’s historically been difficult to do, since these grounds do not include gender (or sexuality, for that matter), since domestic violence is often viewed as a relationship issue rather than a larger societal problem, and the final decision is left to one immigration judge’s discretion.
In Alvarado’s case, her lawyer successfully argued that her abuse was not just an interpersonal issue, because women in Guatemala face persecution on several societal levels and victims of domestic violence aren’t provided adequate protection by the state. Indeed, Alvarado repeatedly sought protection from the authorities but was told the abuse was a domestic affair. Under circumstances like these, simply being a woman could be considered membership in a persecuted social group.
Since U.S. law relies heavily on precedent for its interpretation, Alvarado’s victory could have a huge impact on future asylum cases involving domestic violence. Additionally, the Obama administration has said it is working on regulations that would create a clear pathway to asylum for victims of domestic violence who flee their home countries. The Bush administration, by comparison, fought hard against domestic violence being considered a valid claim for asylum.
Eastsidekate at Shakesville has more commentary on this case.
How come — particularly considering the number of women at the top of the State Dept. of late — is neither sex nor gender a statutory ground for an asylum claim? Do lawmakers simply not believe such discrimination exists? Are we worried Ruritania is going to be madder that we’re implicitly complaining about their sexism than about their oppressing the ethnic Teuton minority?
Hello,
this is slightly off topic, but still on the same subject [Death, Rape, Burns, Broken bones .. Kicks, Slaps, Pushing, Threats, Verbal violence .. Ridicule, Silence .. Everyday male chauvinism]
decided to post a comment since i recently had a discussion (mad, insane, harmful, attacking one) where a lot of the statistics on false rape reports that Ampersand has done a fantastic work on critiquing were used. I did a quick search and found sanity in this blog :) For instance pointing out the typical argumentation mistake made about “feminists-spread-vicious-lies-and-rumors” in “Response to Christina Hoff Sommers, part 3: Truths and Lies”
so. just wanted to say that. that i really appreciate the work done. thanks!
and then felt like sharing some other work made to de-mystify the mechanisms of male control and power: Everyday Male Chauvinism
An important text that for some reason slipped off-line, and therefor ended up being copied onto my blog. Haven’t found a space for it yet. So far the only functioning link to this text on my own blog is in this blog post: Looking 4 Romance (Everyday Male Chauvinism)
thank you for blogging.
<3