In May, our client Maria* was granted asylum after fleeing an abusive relationship in El Salvador. She became one of a growing legion of women whose courage to fight for protection in the United States is helping to define and clarify U.S. immigration law regarding when and how survivors of gender-based violence can obtain asylum. When my colleagues Allyson Spacht and Kat Dore and I met Maria it was clear to us that her escape was critical to her survival. Though we believed in the merits of her case from the beginning, we were concerned that she would encounter the same obstacles survivors like her have long faced: that the immigration judge would not recognize her as a member of a particular social group, that she would not consider the abuse Maria endured to be persecution, or that we would lose to an unfounded “flood gates” argument.
Like most asylum seekers, leaving her homeland and coming to the United States was Maria’s last hope to save her life. Maria had a young daughter when she moved in with a man she had hoped would help to create a stable home. That man turned out to be physically, sexually, and emotionally abusive. Maria also learned that he was associated with a brutal and infamous international gang. After months of enduring escalating abuse, her daughter witnessing every instance, Maria escaped with her daughter to her mother’s house. Her abuser followed, with machete in hand, threatening to kill Maria and her whole family if she did not return to him.
El Salvador is reported to be the most dangerous country in the world for women. Domestic violence usually goes unpunished. The police provided little to no protection for Maria and her family on the two occasions they sought help. The violence and threats to Maria’s life were particularly terrifying given her abuser’s membership in a powerful gang, known for brutal violence against women, over which the government has little to no control. Accepting that she could not keep her daughter safe if she remained in El Salvador, Maria fled the country in the middle of the night, planning to one day send for her daughter from the safety of the United States.
When putting together Maria’s case, we struggled with how to show the judge that Maria indeed fit into one of the law’s five delineated groups eligible for asylum. In order to be eligible for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate that she was persecuted on the basis of her religion, race, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has recognized gender as an immutable characteristic that qualifies as a particular social group, yet there have been few cases where the court accepted a particular social group defined by gender alone.
We argued that Maria was a member of the particular social group related to her gender and nationality, as well as two narrower groups related to her inability to leave her relationship and her abuser’s affiliation with the gang in El Salvador. Maria was persecuted, and feared future persecution, as a result of her membership in all three of those groups. Although these groups could be considered broad, we argued that all of the bases for asylum are broad, but the number of elements an asylum seeker must prove to get asylum should appease any concerns about “floodgates” the judge might hold. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has previously recognized that a similar particular social group could provide a viable basis for an asylum claim. We entered the government’s briefs on this issue into evidence as support for that social group. We also presented testimony from an expert in Latin American gangs who spoke of the power of the gang within El Salvador, and the culture of violence against women in El Salvador and particularly within the gang itself.
After reviewing our brief, country condition evidence, the case law, two days of emotional testimony from Maria and her mother, and compelling testimony from our expert, the judge held in a detailed oral decision that Maria was indeed part of a particular social group related to her gender and relationship to her abuser. DHS chose not to appeal this decision. Maria now resides legally in the United States, is gainfully employed, and is building a better life for herself.
The ruling provides encouraging evidence that the immigration courts and DHS finally are recognizing that victims of gender-based violence who come from countries that refuse to protect them may be entitled to U.S. protections much like victims of political, religious, and race-based violence. Now that Maria has been granted asylum, she has finally been able to start a new life as an independent woman free from violence and has begun the process of reuniting with the daughter she had to leave behind.
*Name has been changed to protect her privacy.
Yael Aufgang is a pro bono lawyer for Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center and an associate at Jones Day.