Essay Sample: The Lack of Protection of the Victims of Domestic Violence under Asylum Law

A high number of people continue to suffer in other countries even though the United States has the required capacity to offer help to them. Although the government has engaged itself in regulating to enhance the capability of the victims of domestic violence to seek asylum in the country, the truth is such regulations are only theoretical since there exist significant contradictions preventing the applicability of the laws in real practice. Such a reality is evident by reflecting on the fact of the Attorney General decision in support of matter A-B thus warranting the domestic violence victims out of protection under asylum law. To back the claim, I will use the court decision on June 11, 2018, and to support the same application, I will reveal the aftermath of the matter A-B.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The court ruling decided by the attorney general Jeff, have contributed to significant inapplicability of the laws providing for the victims of domestic violence to seek asylum in the country. Jeff sessions were mostly on the question of whether the matter A-R-C-G that ensured that the victims of domestic violence were eligible for asylum if they fall in the ''particular social group'' also referred as the group of married women from Guatemala who experience difficulties in leaving their relationships (Arya, 2016). The Attorney General Jeff sessions overruled the entire matter A-R-C-J in the decision referred to as matter A-B even though the authority on the ground proposed it, and the outcome is an increased difficulty for the domestically abused persons from other countries to seek asylum in the country (Matter of A-B-, Respondent, 2018). However, the theoretical policymakers argue that the United States has well-outlined laws highlighting the conditions that individuals may seek asylum. Indeed, the theoretical lawmakers argue that the law is clear in that it only requires the abused individuals to confirm that they have experienced past persecution by the offender. Some argue that the law is even more accommodating since it also provides the individuals with well-founded anxiety that they may get prosecuted on the 'account of a protected ground to seek asylum.

The overruling of the matter A-R-C-J puts the victims of domestic violence out of protection by the asylum law. Although the individuals desiring to make the United States appear too concerned of victims of domestic violence in other countries have staged claims that the law has clear details about the grounds of eligibility for asylum, such proponents are too theoretical. The truth is in the decision making process on the fitness of an individual for refuge; the court will have a dilemma in ascertaining where an individual face ''a well-grounded fear of persecution on a protected ground'' (Arya, 2016). Such a question requires verifying where an individual comes from a particular social group. The Board of the Immigration Appeal(BIA) had foreseen such a possibility, and the overruling of the suggestion by the Attorney General Court sessions means that the U.S law on seeking asylum for the victims of domestic violence remains just a blueprint which will never be applicable in protecting even a single individual.

The case presented in the United States Department of justice on June 11 2018, backs the claims that the asylum law does not offer protection for the victims of domestic violence. During the case, a woman from El Salvador suffered emotional, physical and sexual abuse from an ex-husband and a father of her three children (Arya, 2016). The woman had tried to escape from her husband, but the husband continued to pursue her as she moved throughout the country. Her application of asylum was unsuccessful due to four reasons: she was not credible, she did not qualify as a member of any particular social group, and she did not prove that her close association with a specific social group was the cause of her suffering. However, opponents argue that although the case was handed over to the Board of Immigration Appeal who gave an alternative ruling supporting the eligibility of the El Salvador woman for asylum in the United States, the passing of the case to the board of immigration appeal was in itself a case of procedural irregularity. Despite the opponent's arguments about the issues of certification of the case and the following issues of a procedural defect, the fact is the woman appeal to the BIA served to highlight the situation on the ground where victims of domestic violence are losing in cases concerning the denial of asylum. Importantly, BIA found that the woman qualified for asylum and that the Salvadoran government was not willing to protect her.

To support my claim, although the United States has seen the recognition of the suffering of the victims of domestic violence over the recent past, it is wrong to assume that the government has taken adequate measures to protect every abused person in the entire world. The government has succeeded in implementing domestic policies to protect the United States nationals, but the same initiative is lacking to safeguard the international victims. Throughout, the policymakers have considered the victims of domestic violence as inferior for protection under the asylum law (In re FauziyaKasinga, Applicant, 1996). The proponents of the overruling of the matter A-R-C-G argue that the reform serves to put the standard so high to keep off individuals who may want to use domestic violence as a reason to enter the country (Matter of A-R-C-G et al., Respondents, 2014). They also argue that the courts can determine the cases of domestic violence as they did before the introduction of the matter A-R-C-G. The truth is the removal of the issue A-R-C-G serves to make the judges rely heavily on case laws thus preventing the analysis of the asylum cases a unique decision-making point requiring mixed motive analysis on its own.

To sum up, policymakers are tightening the United States asylum laws to prevent non-victims from benefiting from the rules. The truth is making the asylum laws firm only serves to foreclose the victims of domestic violence. The major hindrance to the eligibility of domestic violence victims for asylum in the United States is the lack of clarity by the inclusion of individuals to a particular social group for guaranteeing protection.

References

Arya.R. (2016). Attorney General issues precedent decision, Matter of A-B-, seeking to limit protection for asylum seekers. Retrieved from https://cliniclegal.org/resources/attorney-general-issues-precedent-decision-matter-b-seeking-limit-protection-asylum

In re Fauziya Kasinga, Applicant.(1996). File 173 476 695-Elizabeth, Decided June 13, 1996. U.S Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3278.pdf

Matter of A-B-, Respondent. (2018). Decided by Attorney General on March 7, 2018.Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1041481/download

Matter of A-R-C-G et al., Respondents.(2014). U.S Department of Justice Executive Officer for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals.Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/08/26/3811.pdf