Stephen Legomsky

Opinion contributor

Our asylum laws have some gaping holes. These gaps endanger many groups, but none more so than women and girls who are fleeing domestic violence, honor killings, mass rape in wartime, gang rape by criminal gangs, and other gender-related violence. Congress must explicitly recognize gender-based persecution as a potential asylum ground.

Asylum requires a “well-founded” fear of being persecuted. But not just any persecution will do. The persecution has to occur for one of five specific reasons — your race, your religion, your nationality, your political opinion, or what the law calls your “particular social group.” Gender is notably missing from this list.

That omission is not surprising. U.S. asylum laws, like those of most other western countries, track the language of an international refugee convention that was adopted in 1951. Gender-related violence was simply not on the public radar at that time.

But it is now 2019. The historical excuse will no longer wash. With women’s marches, the MeToo movement, the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process and women’s stunning midterm electoral successes, gender-related violence is now part of our national consciousness.

Read more commentary:

As a Syrian refugee in US, I watched my country collapse. But there is a path to hope.

Refugees at US-Mexico border are treated like criminals

Bring more refugees to America. They'll fill vacant jobs and boost our economy.

Without specific congressional recognition of gender-based persecution, women and girls fleeing the most horrific violence imaginable have had to argue that they will be persecuted because of their “particular social group.” Today that is easier said than done. The nation’s highest administrative tribunal that decides asylum claims — the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals — has been adding more and more roadblocks to asylum claims that are based on "particular social group."

This was not always the case. In 1985, the board defined “particular social group” as one in which membership is “immutable.” Gender, of course, meets that definition.

The immutability test makes perfect sense. If you will be persecuted only because of an innocuous characteristic that you can easily change, then you don’t need asylum. But if that characteristic cannot be changed, you have no other practical way to protect yourself. The immutability test thus allows asylum for those who need it and withholds it from those who don’t.

Justice constraints are harmful, irrational

But the board could not leave well enough alone. Along the way it invented two additional requirements. One is “social distinction.” If you claim persecution because of your membership in a “particular social group,” you must now prove that your home society describes that class of individuals as a “group.” Second, you must now prove what the board calls “particularity.” By this it means you must prove that your home society can figure out whether hypothetical other individuals are members of the group.

There are only four problems with those requirements: The board has no convincing legal authority to impose them. No one really understands what they mean. They are nearly impossible to prove. And they make no policy sense: why should the U.S. decision whether to grant asylum to someone depend on whether her home society thinks of the particular class as a “group,” or on whether the home society can tell which other individuals belong to that “group”?

Last June, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions made this bad situation worse. Overruling board precedent, he announced that, henceforth, anyone fleeing domestic violence (or, for that matter anyone fleeing gang violence) will “generally” be unable to prove either social distinction or particularity and therefore should be denied asylum. Although a federal court has blocked that decision for now, the Supreme Court will likely determine its ultimate fate.

But the problems go beyond that specific case. First, the artificial constraints that the board has imposed for all claims based on “particular social group” are both harmful and irrational. Second, it is only because gender is not on Congress’s list of specifically protected grounds that women and girls have had to fit their claims into “particular social group” in the first place.

Women would still prove need for asylum

What arguments could possibly be made for protecting people from racial or religious persecution but not from gender persecution?

Perhaps the fear is that domestic violence is too endemic, that allowing asylum would open the floodgates. We need not worry, for a woman or girl fleeing domestic violence has multiple legal burdens that minimize the numbers: She must prove that her fear is both genuine and well-founded, that the harm she fears is severe, that her government is unable or unwilling to protect her, that no place anywhere in her country would be safe, and — even if gender is added to the list — that the persecution will be inflicted because of her gender. These are all high bars, and proof requires meticulous, persuasive documentation. Canada has recognized domestic violence asylum claims since the 1990s, and no floodgates have opened.

The U.S. cannot singlehandedly eradicate all violence against women and girls — even here at home. But we can at least avoid being an accomplice. When women and girls arrive at our shores asking only that they not be beaten, raped or murdered, delivering them to their tormentors is not an option. Congress should restore the original meaning of “particular social group,” and it should recognize that gender, like race and religion, belongs in the list of specifically protected grounds.

Stephen Legomsky is a professor emeritus at the Washington University School of Law, the principal author of "Immigration and Refugee Law and Policy," and the former Chief Counsel of US Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Obama Administration.