Asylum Case Law

Some other asylum law cases have significantly shaped the U.S. immigration system. Here are some of the most important and landmark asylum law cases:

1. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (1987)

• Issue: This case clarified the standard for asylum claims under U.S. law.
• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the standard of proof for asylum (a “well-founded fear” of persecution) is lower than for withholding of deportation. The decision established that a person does not need to prove persecution is more likely than not, only that they have a reasonable fear of it.

2. Matter of Acosta (1985)

• Issue: This case helped define what constitutes a “particular social group” (PSG) for asylum purposes.
• Ruling: The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) defined PSG as people who share a common, immutable characteristic that they cannot or should not be expected to change. The Acosta framework remains a key factor in PSG analysis today.

3. Matter of Mogharrabi (1987)

• Issue: This case established standards for proving asylum eligibility based on fear of persecution.
• Ruling: The BIA ruled that an asylum seeker must show they have a genuine fear of persecution and that it is reasonable to believe that this fear will materialize if returned to their home country.

4. Matter of Toboso-Alfonso (1990)

• Issue: The case involved a gay man from Cuba seeking asylum.
• Ruling: The BIA held that sexual orientation could qualify as a “particular social group,” thus setting precedent for LGBTQ+ individuals to seek asylum in the U.S.

5. Matter of Kasinga (1996)

• Issue: Female genital mutilation (FGM) and gender-based persecution.
• Ruling: The BIA ruled that gender, combined with the practice of FGM, could constitute a particular social group. This landmark decision expanded the scope of asylum to include victims of gender-based violence.

6. Matter of A-B- (2018)

• Issue: Domestic violence as grounds for asylum.
• Ruling: Attorney General Jeff Sessions overturned a previous ruling (Matter of A-R-C-G-), stating that victims of domestic violence generally do not qualify for asylum because such claims were often based on private rather than government persecution. This decision narrowed the scope of asylum, but its impact has since fluctuated with policy changes.

7. Refugee Act of 1980

• Importance: Although not a case, this Act fundamentally shaped U.S. asylum law by aligning it with international standards set forth in the 1951 Refugee Convention. It established the asylum system and codified the rights of refugees under U.S. law.

8. Matter of R-A- (2009)

• Issue: Asylum for victims of domestic violence.
• Ruling: The BIA reopened this case multiple times due to shifting interpretations of asylum law regarding gender-based violence. In 2009, the Obama administration took steps to allow domestic violence survivors to qualify for asylum.

9. Negusie v. Holder (2009)

• Issue: This case addressed whether persecutors who were forced to engage in persecution under duress could qualify for asylum.
• Ruling: The Supreme Court held that a duress defense might be available to individuals who were forced to participate in persecution, thereby clarifying a key aspect of asylum law.

10. Matter of L-E-A- (2019)

• Issue: Asylum claims based on family membership as a “particular social group.”
• Ruling: This case involved whether family membership could qualify as a PSG. The Trump administration’s decision limited family-based asylum claims, but this interpretation has faced legal challenges.

These cases reflect the evolving and complex nature of U.S. asylum law, balancing humanitarian concerns with legal standards, and are often revisited with changing political and social climates.