The practice of female genital mutilation is patently offensive to most people. But it wasn’t offensive enough to allow victims of this barbaric practice to gain asylum in the United States. That is, until Ana Reyes and other attorneys at Williams & Connolly got involved.
In spring 2008, Williams & Connolly was approached by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies. They were looking for attorneys to help draft an amicus curiae brief for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Three women from Guinea, all victims of genital mutilation in their home country, were about to be deported. The Board of Immigration Appeals had ruled that genital mutilation–the practice of often-forced slicing of the female sex organs, usually with rudimentary tools and no anesthetic–wasn’t enough to stay an immigrant’s expulsion.
“The immigration judge had ruled that genital mutilation was terrible, but that it wasn’t enough for asylum,” remembers Ana. “The rationale was: Once the act has occurred, the victim can’t show that she’ll face further danger in her home country, something that U.S. law requires to be granted asylum.”
