CGRS Win for Domestic Violence Survivors Seeking Asylum
Professor Karen Musalo
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has overturned a lower court decision denying asylum to a domestic violence survivor, reaffirming that refugee women are deserving of protection under U.S. law.
UC Law SF鈥檚 (CGRS), which argued the case as amicus counsel, applauded聽听颈苍听De Pena-Paniagua v. Barr聽as an important step in restoring the protections former Attorney General Jeff Sessions sought to wipe out in the case known as聽, litigation brought by CGRS.
CGRS supported the petitioner, Jacelys Miguelina De Pena-Paniagua, whose story is not unlike that of CGRS鈥檚 client聽, the woman at the center of the聽A-B-聽case. Like A.B., who fled El Salvador following escalating threats from her husband, De Pena sought asylum in the United States after enduring years of horrific domestic violence in the Dominican Republic.
Advocates argued that like A.B., De Pena was failed by the authorities in her home country, who refused to protect her from her abuser. And, like A.B., De Pena did not receive fair and lawful treatment in the United States.
鈥Emblematic of the Crisis鈥
鈥淢s. De Pena鈥檚 case is emblematic of the protection crisis created by the former Attorney General鈥檚 decision in聽Matter of A-B-,鈥 said CGRS Legal Director . 鈥淎lthough U.S. law has long recognized that women fleeing gender-based persecution can establish eligibility for asylum, the Board of Immigration Appeals used聽Matter of A-B– to improperly deny Ms. De Pena a fair hearing. We are pleased the First Circuit called out the Board鈥檚 unlawful and unprincipled decision.鈥
De Pena鈥檚 case highlights the far-reaching, devastating impacts of Sessions鈥 ruling, which overturned a legal precedent affirming domestic violence survivors鈥 right to seek asylum. Since the聽Matter of A-B-聽decision came down in 2018, it has been used to single out women鈥檚 claims for discriminatory treatment.
According to CGRS, some adjudicators have incorrectly interpreted聽Matter of A-B-聽to impose a complete ban on cases involving domestic violence. The First Circuit held that the Board made just such an error in De Pena鈥檚 case, by relying on聽Matter of A-B-聽to reject her claim without conducting a meaningful examination of her case.
鈥Women Are a Protected Group鈥
CGRS Director Karen Musalo applauded the court鈥檚 ruling. 鈥淎t its heart, the First Circuit decision recognizes what should be obvious to anyone and what had been the law of the land before Sessions intervened: That women are a protected group and that in many countries they are persecuted because of their gender and status as women in society. Moreover, the court reiterated a bedrock principle of asylum law that claims for protection cannot be categorically rejected, but must be decided on their individual facts.鈥
Under U.S. and international law, our government is obligated to extend protection to domestic violence survivors like De Pena who continue to meet the stringent criteria for asylum, Musalo said.
When A.B. learned of the ruling, she expressed hope that the United States will live up to this commitment. 鈥淚t has caused me great pain to think that my case has been used to justify the rejection of other women like me seeking protection from the violence that plagues our countries,鈥 she said. 鈥淭he court鈥檚 decision gives me faith that the decision in my case will not close the door for others and that my case too will eventually prevail and I will be able to hold my children again in safety.鈥
About CGRS
CGRS works to defend the fundamental human rights of refugee women, children, LGBT individuals, and others who flee persecution in their home countries. The center combines legal strategies with policy advocacy and human rights interventions to secure greater protections for refugees and asylum seekers.