LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR
ASYLUM, OR ALTERNATIVELY, WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL OR RELIEF
PURSUANT TO THE
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3
I. MS. DOE JANE’S REQUEST FOR ASYLUM SHOULD BE GRANTED ..................................... 10
A. MS. DOE JANE SUFFERED PAST PERSECUTION .................................................................. 11
II. Ms. DOE Jane Suffered Persecution on Account of her Membership in Two Particular Social
Groups and Political Opinion .................................................................................................................. 17
A. “Origin country Lesbians” is a Legally Cognizable Social Group ................................................. 18
1. Ms. DOE Jane was Persecuted on Account of her Membership in the Particular Social Group of
“Origin country Lesbians” .................................................................................................................. 21
B. Ms. DOE Jane is a Origin country Female Member of the Jane Family Who Has Dishonored her
family by means of her Sexual Orientation as a Lesbian and Has been Persecuted on Account of this
Membership ............................................................................................................................................ 24
C. Ms. DOE Jane was Persecuted on Account of her Political Opinion ............................................. 26
III. Ms. DOE Jane is Entitled to the Presumption of a Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution .......... 27
A. Country Conditions in Origin country for Homosexuals Have Not Improved ......................... 28
B. Ms. DOE Jane Cannot Avoid Persecution by Internally Relocating .............................................. 33
IV. THE ORIGIN COUNTRY GOVERNMENT IS UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO PROTECT MS.
DOE JANE FROM INTRA-FAMILY VIOLENCE................................................................................... 35
V. Ms. DOE Jane Has a Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution On Account Of Her Membership in
Two Particular Social Groups and Political Opinion .................................................................................. 38
A. The Harm Ms. DOE Jane Fears Rises to the Level of Persecution ...................................... 38
B. Ms. DOE Jane Subjectively and Objectively Fears Persecution .......................................... 38
C. The Persecution Ms. DOE Jane Fears is on Account of her Membership in Particular
Social Group and Political Opinion ................................................................................................. 39
VI. Ms. DOE Jane is Unable and Unwilling to Avail Herself of the Protection of the Government of
Origin country ......................................................................................................................................... 40
VII. Ms. DOE Jane Cannot Avoid Persecution by Internally Relocating .......................................... 40
VIII. There Are No Statutory Bars to a Grant Of Asylum ................................................................... 40
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief LGBT Fourth Circuit
IX. ALTERNATIVELY, MS. DOE JANE’S APPLICATION FOR WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL
SHOULD BE GRANTED .......................................................................................................................... 41
X. MS. DOE JANE IS ENTITLED TO WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL UNDER THE
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE .................................................................................................... 42
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 43
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
INTRODUCTION
Jane DOE Jane (“Jane” or “Ms. DOE Jane”) seeks asylum in the United States because
she fears persecution in her home country of Origin country on the basis of her membership in a
particular social group and political opinion. Ms. DOE Jane, openly lesbian, has been beaten by
family members and harassed and detained by the police. During the past four years, her
suffering has included threats of violence and death, rape, beatings, and attempted arrest and
detention by Origin country law enforcement officials. Ms. DOE Jane is not safe anywhere in
Origin country, and she fears that she will be severely harmed or killed if forced to return.
Ms. DOE Jane should be granted asylum under §208(a) of the Immigration and
Naturalization Act (“INA”) or, in the alternative, withholding of removal under INA §241(b)(3)
or the Convention Against Torture.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Ms. DOE Jane (herein after “Jane”) was born on in ,
Origin country into the family of , members of the X tribe (also spelled Jane)
1
.
Tab C, Resp’t Decl., ¶ 1. Throughout her childhood and adolescence, Jane lacked interest in
sex or sexuality. Id. at ¶10. When her female friends had boyfriends she “would get mad at
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
them” and could not understand why she did not have crushes on boys like they did. Id. at ¶21.
At age fifteen, Jane began training as a hair braider which led her to a career working at hair
salons where she first encountered both gay men and lesbians. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 11. Unlike most
Origin country, Jane felt “comfortable” with her new gay friends and began spending time
socially with them. Id. at ¶11.
Around 2004, at the age of nineteen, Jane fell in love for the first time. A woman named
Mary became her client at the salon. Id. at ¶20. This attraction sparked the realization for Jane
that she was a lesbian; for the first time “[her] feelings started making sense to [her] at age 19.
[She] finally understood who [she] was”. Id. at ¶¶20-22. While Jane did not engage in a
relationship because Mary was married and straight, this experience led to her awaFrankss of her
sexual orientation. Id at ¶¶ 23.
Soon after this realization, Jane was raped by a male acquaintance named Jack Sprat. Mr.
Sprat romantically pursued Jane despite her repeated refusals. Id. at ¶24-26. Mr. Sprat regularly
attempted to dissuade Jane from associating with lesbians and repeatedly asked her if she was a
lesbian. Id at ¶26. Despite her repeated denials, he told her “we could pray together and things
would change”. Id. at ¶27. One day in February , Mr. Sprat raped Jane. Id. at ¶28. Right
before he raped her, he told Jane that “you don’t want to follow me because you follow girls.
Now you are going to see what I do.” Id. When Jane became pregnant, he told her it could not
be his child because she was a lesbian”. Id. at ¶29. Unfortunately, this was actually the second
rape
2
suffered by Jane by the time she was twenty-one years old. Id at ¶¶12-15. Jane never
reported the rapes because she believed that the police would never act on her report and she
2
Jane was raped by a male acquaintance when she was 18 years old. See Tab C at ¶¶12-17.
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
knew that women who are raped in Origin country are subject to humiliation and harassment. Id
at ¶16-17.
The trauma of the rape led Jane to seek comfort in the friendship of Sally May. Id. at
¶30. Jane had known Sally as a client at the salon but had previously rebuffed Sally’s overtures.
Id. at ¶19, 30. Sally was a lesbian client who “was like a man. She had the body build like a
man with lots of muscles because she would lift weights. Her chest was flat and she kept her
hair in dreadlocks”. Id at ¶30. Previously, Jane had rejected Sally’s advances because she was
interested in Mary at the time and thought Sally was a “just a flirt”. Id. However over time,
Sally convinced Jane that her feelings were serious and after two months of courtship they
became a couple. Id at ¶¶31-39. When Jane revealed that she was pregnant from the rape, Sally
responded that “this child will be mine” as the couple embraced and declared their love to each
other for the first time. Id at ¶37.
The couple decided to keep their relationship a secret during the pregnancy, as Jane was
overwhelmed with the situation and was not ready to “come out”. Id at ¶38. There had been
rumors in the neighborhood about Jane’s sexuality but they seemed to die down once it was clear
that she was pregnant because “people in Origin country don’t believe that lesbians can become
pregnant”. Id. at ¶38. The couple supported each other through the pregnancy and the opening
of Jane’s own beauty salon called “Princesse Beaute”. Id at ¶40. After Jane gave birth to her
daughter X on November 15, 2006, the couple kissed for the first time and eventually became
sexually intimate. Id. at ¶41. Jane came out to Sally’s circle of lesbian friends but not to her
community or family due to the illegality of homosexuality and wide-spread societal
condemnation. Id. at ¶¶47-49; see also Tab H; Tab J. Homosexuality in Origin country is illegal
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
under law, and gay men and lesbians routinely suffer persecution, arbitrary arrest, threats,
violence, and rejection by their families and communities due to their sexual orientation.
3
Eventually, her neighbors and her family began suspecting that Jane was gay; her
neighbors in began to yell out insults when they saw her in public like “sorceress” or
“witch”, common epithets for lesbians in Origin country. See Tab C at ¶47-49; see also Tab I.
However, Jane continued her relationship with Sally; they virtually lived together, raising as a
family and running salon. See Tab C at ¶46; see also Tab H. Jane would bring Sally to
her family’s gatherings but introduced her as a friend. See Tab C at ¶49. Eventually, the rumors
became so persistent and strong that her Uncle confronted her about her sexuality in 2008,
about two months before second birthday. Id. at ¶52. Her Uncle is the eldest of her
four uncles. Id. During this confrontation her Uncle accused Jane of being “with those
witches” and threatened to have her beaten by her Uncle if she “didn’t change [her]
ways”. Id. at ¶53. Jane took this threat seriously, but also refused to conform to her uncle’s
demands because she wanted to continue her relationship and was supported by her lesbian
friends. Id at ¶54.
Her Uncle’s words turned out to be more than just idle threats. After her Uncle
witnessed Jane embracing Sally at their daughter second birthday party on November 15,
2008, she was summoned by him to her home two days later. Id. at ¶58. See also Tab H. That
day, Uncle confronted his niece and began to brutally beat her. See Tab C at ¶¶58, 61.
He repeatedly kicked her and beat her with his hands, belt and a metal stick. Id. at ¶61. Her
cousins Sandriene and Vanessa witnessed the beating and did nothing to stop him. Id at ¶¶59,
h
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
61. Even when the neighbors came to the scene, no one assisted Jane after he told them “If one
of your daughters loves another woman, is that going to please you? What type of education are
you going to give to your daughters? What are you going to bring to this family? Have you
forgotten our culture?” Id. at ¶62; see also Tab I. It was only after Jane was bruised, bloody and
begged for mercy that her Uncle stopped beating her, but only after warning her “If I ever see
you again with that woman, I am going to kill you.” Tab C at ¶63.
After the beating, Jane fled to her father’s home in to seek protection. Id at
¶ 64-69; see also Tab G. When her father found out the reason for the beating he condemned her
but took her to the local village for treatment. Id. After this, her father stopped talking to her.
Tab C at ¶ 74. As a result of the beating, Jane suffered an open wound on her legs and became
sick with fever. Id. at ¶70; see also Tabs B, C & F. Jane returned to to receive treatment
at the hospital after Sally found out about the beating. Tab C at ¶71; see also Tab F. Jane had to
spend several days at “ ” where she was treated for her multiple
wounds and fever and comforted by her partner and friends. See Tab C at ¶72; see also Tabs D-
H. After this assault, Jane became afraid of her own family members because she knew that her
entire family agreed with Uncle actions “to save the honor of the family”. Tab C at
¶73. As a result, Jane was ostracized and became estranged from her family, including her
father. Id. at ¶74-78; see also Tab G.
Jane and Sally continued to be together as a family, but kept their relationship “out of
sight” for fear of her family. Tab C at ¶75; see also Tab I. In spite of their attempts to conceal
the relationship, after the public beating, Jane’s sexuality became well-known among her
neighbors and community members. Tab C. at ¶76-77; see also Tab I. When community
members and clients questioned her about her sexuality, Jane would respond “I will do whatever
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
I want to do, and no one has a right to judge me.” Tab C. at ¶76. As a result, some clients
stopped patronizing her salon and neighbors would call the couple “witches” or “devils” and tell
them that “they were the people who killed god”. Id at ¶76-77. Additionally, Jane suffered two
robberies at her salon during those years and believes she was targeted because she was a known
lesbian. Id. at ¶79. In 2010, her father demanded that X come live with him in Fongo Tongo
because Jane refused to conform to a heterosexual lifestyle. Id. at ¶78, Tab G. Jane obeyed in
order to appease her father and so was taken to . Id.
In December , Sally proposed marriage to Jane and presented her with an
engagement ring in front of all their friends. Tab C at ¶¶80-83. Despite this formal commitment
to each other, they had to keep their intentions secret because they could be subject to arrest. Id.
at ¶84. The couple chose March as their wedding day in conjunction with International
Women’s Day in Africa on March . Id. at ¶86; see also Tab H. The couple enlisted their
community of lesbian friends to make preparations for the wedding and reception. Id. at ¶87; see
also Tab H. A lesbian friend of Sally had a home inherited from her parents which had been
previously used to conduct same-sex ceremonies. Tab C at ¶88. That day, Jane, Sally and all of
their friends went to this home to celebrate their relationship. Id. at ¶89-91; see also Tab H.
Their friends served as the couple’s witnesses. See Tab H. The couple had
just exchanged rings when the Origin country police raided the ceremony. Tab C at ¶93.
Initially, at least five police officers arrived at the property and ordered everyone to
remain still. Id. at ¶94. However, many people panicked and began running to escape the police.
Id. at ¶94. Jane was grabbed by a police officer and dragged into a police truck that was parked
right in front of the courtyard gate to block the exit. Id. From the truck, Jane could hear screams
and see people running. Id. at ¶95. She could also see police officers hitting people with their
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
police batons and stamping on people’s feet. See Tab C at ¶95; see also Tab H. In order to
stop people from fleeing, the police officers guarding the truck were called to help block the
other exits, leaving it unattended. Tab C at ¶96. Several people, including Jane, took the
opportunity and jumped out of the back of the truck and ran away. Id. at ¶¶96-97. Luckily, Jane
still had her wallet with an ATM card and was able to take out money and get to her father’s
home in Fongo Tongo. Id. at ¶¶97-99; see also Tab G. Jane later learned through her brother
that the police had questioned him and her neighbors, had gone to her home to look for her and
had broken into her salon. Tab C at ¶¶100-104. Jane had heard of a Pentecostal church that
might help her so she returned to . Id. at ¶107. Jane was able to make it to this church
undetected where she begged for help. Id. at ¶108-109. She begged for assistance and one of the
pastors agreed to help her travel outside of the country. Id at ¶¶110-112. Her brother was able to
get a few basic belongings for Jane and take out money from her bank account. Id at ¶113.
Over the next several months, Jane and the pastor travelled by bus and boat until they
arrived to border. Id. at ¶¶114-123. Jane was left at the border where
she requested asylum. Id. at ¶128; see also Tab B & NTA. Ms. DOE Jane timely applied for
asylum in Baltimore Immigration Court on May 21, 2013. See I-589.
Upon her arrival, Jane was trafficked to a home in Maryland where she was forced to
work under threat and without pay. Tab C at ¶131. Jane was able to escape that situation and
move in with good samaritans in Baltimore County, although she continued to suffer from
depression from the trauma. See Tab K. On February 26, 2013, while waiting for a public bus in
, Jane was abducted by two unknown men and raped by one of her kidnappers;
Tab C at ¶133-134. Jane reported that rape to Baltimore County police and has filed a U
Nonimmigrant Status Petition that is pending with USCIS. See Tab L. The rape exacerbated her
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
prior trauma causing her to be hospitalized in June 2013. Tab C at ¶134. Recently Jane learned
that after she left Origin country, her grandfather and father were banished from Fongo Tongo by
their chief due to the dishonor that she had brought upon the tribe and were only able to return
after it was confirmed that Jane was no longer in Origin country. Tab C at ¶139. Jane was able
to get in touch with her girlfriend Sally and her friend , both of whom have fled Origin
country after they were detained, beaten and arrested. Tab C at ¶137, 140; see also Tab H.
I. MS. DOE JANE’S REQUEST FOR ASYLUM SHOULD BE GRANTED
To qualify for asylum under Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Respondent
must show that she is a refugee within the meaning of Section 101(a) (42) of the Act. INA §
208(a). The refugee definition includes a requirement that Respondent demonstrate either that
she suffered past persecution or possesses a well-founded fear of future persecution in her
country of nationality on account of one of five statutory grounds. Id. The REAL ID Act
specifies that the Respondent must establish that one of the five grounds was or will be “at least
one central reason” for persecuting respondent. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (2008).
4
Finally, an
applicant for asylum must also establish that asylum is warranted in the exercise of discretion.
The burden of proof is on the Respondent to establish eligibility for asylum.
As set forth below, Ms. DOE Jane meets the definition of a refugee and qualifies for
asylum based on the past persecution she suffered as well as her well-founded fear of persecution
on account of her membership in two different particular social groups and her political opinion.
As demonstrated below, the Origin country government is Ms. DOE Jane’s persecutor and is
unable and unwilling to stop her family members from further persecuting her. Furthermore,
4
The provisions of the “REAL ID Act of 2005" apply to the respondents’ applications as they were filed on or after
May 11, 2005.
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
Ms. DOE Jane’s application for asylum was timely filed and warrants a positive exercise of
discretion.
A. MS. DOE JANE SUFFERED PAST PERSECUTION
Since when her sexual orientation was revealed, Ms. DOE Jane has been subjected
to rape, threats of violence and death, a brutal beating that required hospitalization, loss of
physical custody of her daughter and an attempted arrest by the Origin country police. See
generally Tab C see also Tabs D-I. Ms. DOE Jane has been persecuted both by the Origin
country government through the police and by her immediate family members, namely her
paternal uncles, .
The INA does not define “persecution,” but courts and the BIA have found that
persecution involves “the infliction or threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s person or
freedom” because of one of the statutorily protected grounds. See Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171,
177 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Kondakova v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 792, 797 (8th Cir. 2004)); Matter
of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 222 (BIA 1985). ,
The Beatings and Threats of Violence and Death Suffered By Ms. DOE Jane
Constitute Persecution
The cumulative harm that Ms. DOE Jane suffered at the hands of her uncles, her father,
and the Origin country police unquestionably rises to the level of persecution. Persecution
includes the “threat of death,” Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 126 (4
th
Cir. 2011).
Upon hearing rumors of his niece’s homosexuality, her Uncle threatened to have her
beaten and stripped naked in public if she continued to engage in homosexuality. Tab C at ¶ 52-
54. This violent threat turned out to be more than idle. Approximately two months later, on
November 17, 2008, Ms. DOE Jane was brutally beaten by her Uncle after he witnessed
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
her being affectionate with her girlfriend Sally. Id. at ¶¶60-63. repeatedly beat her with
his hands, feet, a belt and a metal rod and told onlookers that “I won’t stop even if I give her
death”. Id. After he was done beating his niece, threatened to kill her. Id. Ms. DOE
Jane’s injuries were so severe that she required treatment at a clinic in Fongo Tongo and
hospitalization in Douala. Id at ¶¶70-74; see also Tabs D, E, G, H. Severe physical abuse
committed by one’s own family has been found by the BIA to amount to persecution. See Matter
of S-A-, 22 I&N 1328 (BIA 2000). Similarly, severe threats of violence and repeated beatings in
a domestic situation are also persecution. See Lazo-Majano v. INS, 813 F.2d 1432, 1434 (9
th
Cir.
1987), overruled on other grounds by Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955 (9
th
Cir. 1996); See, e.g.,
Vaduva v. INS, 131 F.3d 689, 690 (7
th
Cir. 1997) (Court found single serious beating to constitute
persecution).
This assault is corroborated by supporting evidence. A report from ,
M.D. noted scarring on Ms. DOE Jane’s left and right lower legs which is consistent with “blunt
trauma as from a belt or police baton” per her description of the November 2008 assault. See
Tabs C, D & Tab A, ¶70. Dr. also found that the scarring was consistent “with an
open wound that was infected and then healed by scarring over”, corroborating Ms. DOE Jane’s
account of requiring but refusing stiches for her leg wounds. Id. A certified medical record
from Origin country confirms that Ms. DOE Jane reported the assault by her uncle in November
and received treatment at the . See Tab D. These events
are further corroborated by sworn affidavits from her father and her friend
who witnessed her injuries. See Tabs G & H.
The Rape Suffered By Ms. DOE Jane Constitutes Persecution
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
As detailed in Section I, supra, Ms. DOE Jane was raped in 2006 by Mr. Jack Sprat. Tab
C at ¶¶24-29. This was the first incident of persecution on account of her sexual orientation. It is
well-settled amongst the courts that rape and threats of physical violence constitute acts of
persecution. See Matter of D-V-, 21 I&N Dec. 77, 79 (1993); Lopez-Galarza v. INS, 99 F.3d
954, 959 (9th Cir. 1996). Therefore, the rape that Ms. DOE Jane suffered on account of her
sexual orientation constitutes past persecution.
Attempted Arrest, Harassment and Destruction of Ms. DOE Jane’s Business By the
Origin country Police Amounts To Persecution
Ms. DOE Jane has also suffered past persecution from the Origin country government
through its police. The police raided Ms. DOE Jane’s same-sex marriage ceremony to her
chosen spouse and then attempted to arrest and detain her for exercising that right. Tab C at
¶¶94-98. After Ms. DOE Jane was able to escape imminent arrest, the police then searched for
her and questioned her brother and neighbors about her whereabouts. See Tab C, ¶¶93-98, 101;
see also Tab I. The police then went to Ms. DOE Jane’s salon and caused destruction or
significant damage to it. See Tab C at ¶¶103-15; Tab I. Ms. DOE Jane’s brother told her that his
friends “had called him about what happened at the salon”. See Tab C at ¶¶103-105. Her
brother had told her that her neighbors knew that her hair salon “was a place where lesbians
gathered and told the police to ‘totally get rid of my place…to make it disappear’”. See Tab C at
¶¶103-105. , a sympathetic neighbor, had heard that Ms. DOE Jane’s salon “had
been demolished” and went to visit the site where he “saw the disaster (at the salon), and Jane
was gone”. See Tab I, Wandji Decl. The cumulative effect of an asylum applicant’s
experience must be taken into account in evaluating whether the applicant suffered persecution.
See Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, I. & N. Dec. 23, 25-26 (BIA 1998) (finding that,“[i]n the aggregate”
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
being physically assaulted three times, harassed through the mail system, and suffering property
vandalism, “rise to the level of persecution”).
The Denial of Liberties Suffered By Ms. DOE Jane Constitutes Persecution
The BIA and six circuits have also recognized that persecution encompasses the
“significant deprivation of liberty.” Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 223-24 (BIA 1985); Suharyadi v.
Attorney General, No. 06-2314, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 6369, at 8 (3d Cir. Mar. 26, 2008); Bi
Hua Weng v. Mukasey, No. 06-3862, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29635, at 9 (6th Cir. Dec. 19,
2007); Evelyne v. Keisler, No. 06-2314, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 23685, at 7 (1st Cir. Oct. 5,
2007); Pavlovich v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 613, 616 (8th Cir. 2007); Roman v. INS, 233 F.3d 1027,
1034 (7th Cir. 2000); Alfaro v. INS, No. 95-70493, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2503, at 4-5 (9th Cir.
Feb. 12, 1997). Ms. DOE Jane faces a threat to the deprivation of her liberties in the form of
detention and attempted arrest, denying her the right to raise her child, and denial of her right to
marry the person of her choosing.
Denying Ms. DOE Jane’s Right to Marry Constitutes a Deprivation of Liberty That
Rises to the Level of Persecution
In December 2011, Ms. DOE Jane accepted the proposal of marriage from Sally, her
partner of five years. Tab C at ¶¶80-84; see also Tab H. The engagement made their
relationship “profound and welded”. Tab C at ¶85. On March , the couple was in the
middle of a marriage ceremony and had just exchanged rings when the Origin country police
entered the property. Id at ¶92; see also Tab H. Origin country police raided the wedding in
order to prevent the marriage from taking place as same-sex marriage is illegal in Origin
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
country
5
. Tab C at ¶¶ 89-93; see also Tabs H, M. The basic human right to family unity, which
will be discussed in greater detail below, necessarily includes the right to marry the person of
one’s choosing. Numerous international human rights treatises recognize an individual’s right to
enter into marriage voluntarily.
6
Because denying her right to marry violates her basic human
rights such actions constitute the kind of deprivation of liberty that rises to the level of
persecution.
Denying Her the Right To Raise Her Daughter Amounts to Persecution
In , Ms. DOE Jane’s father demanded physical custody of Ms. DOE Jane’s four year
old daughter X because she refused to conform to a heterosexual orientation. Tab C at ¶78; see
also Tab G. Mrs. DOE Jane’s father admits in his sworn affidavit that he took Ursuala away
from her mother because his elder brother Frank urged him “to take my granddaughter so that
she wouldn’t follow the same lifestyle as her mother”. Tab G. Forcing Ms. DOE Jane to
relinquish custody of her daughter as punishment for her sexual orientation is a violation of their
fundamental human right to family unity. “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit
of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” See, Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A, U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., 1st plen. mtg., U.N. Doc. A/810 (Dec.
5
t
p
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
12, 1948), at art. 16(3), available at http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm. Further, the
UDHR protects a parent’s right of freedom to live and associate with the members of his or her
family without state interference. Id.
“[A] parent’s right to maintain custody of her child and the intactness of her family are
understood as fundamental rights by the U.S. courts and the international community.” Melanie
A. Conroy, Refugees Themselves: The Asylum Case for Parents of Children at Risk of Female
Genital Mutilation, 22 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 109, 118 (Winter 2009) (citing Moore v. City of
Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) (finding the intactness of one’s family unit was deemed a right
fundamental to free association guaranteed by the First Amendment and the substantive due
process of the Fifth Amendment); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 23
(addressing creation and maintenance of the family unit) and art. 22 (addressing the rights of
association), Dec. 19, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171). These international conventions establish the
rights to associate with one’s family and the right to freedom from unlawful interference with
one’s family as basic human rights and therefore, “[a]rbitrary and discriminatory violation of
these rights that forces the abandonment of one’s child in order to avoid her torture is violative of
the basic guarantees of human dignity that the Convention sought to protect.” Id. While there
was no explicit threat of violence delivered by her father in seizing his granddaughter, it would
be reasonable for someone in Ms. DOE Jane’s position to fear violence is she had refused to
comply given the beating she endured by her Uncle George. Additionally, denying Ms. DOE
Jane the right to raise her daughter and to instruct her daughter’s political and religious education
is also a violation of a fundamental right.
7
Denying Ms. DOE Jane’s parental involvement in
7
The U.S. Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) held that the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
such fundamental decisions as the morality and religion violates her right to guide her child’s
upbringing.
II. Ms. DOE Jane Suffered Persecution on Account of her Membership in Two
Particular Social Groups and Political Opinion
Ms. DOE Jane qualifies for asylum because the past persecution she suffered is on
account of multiple protected grounds, namely her membership in two particular social groups
and political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Ms. DOE Jane is a member of the
particular social groups of: (1) “Origin country lesbians”, (2) “Origin country X Females in the
Ngeufack Family Who Refuse To Conform to a Heterosexual Orientation, and (3) Origin country
X Females of the Ngeufack Family Who Have Brought Dishonor Upon their Families due to
Their Lesbian Orientation.
The Fourth Circuit and BIA have expressed that a particular social group must (1) share a
common, immutable characteristic, (2) be defined with sufficient particularity to render the
concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. In making this holding, the Court examined its past
treatment of parental rights:
The liberty interest at issue in this case -- the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of
their children -- is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.
More than 75 years ago, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 43 S. Ct.
625 (1923), we held that the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of
parents to ‘establish a home and bring up children’ and ‘to control the education of their own.’ Two
years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 45 S. Ct. 571
(1925), we again held that the ‘liberty of parents and guardians’ includes the right ‘to direct the
upbringing and education of children under their control.’ We explained in Pierce that the child is
not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right,
coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.’ 268 U.S. at
535. We returned to the subject in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 88 L. Ed. 645, 64 S. Ct.
438 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to
direct the upbringing of their children. It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of
the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for
obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder."
321 U.S. at 166.
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
group a “discrete class of persons,” and, (3) be “socially distinct” in the country at issue.
Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 124-25 (4
th
Cir. 2011);Matter of W-G-R, 25 I&N
Dec 208 (BIA 2014); Matter of M-E-V-G, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2013). The BIA has instructed
that social distinction is determined by the perception of the group in question as a socially
distinct group by the society or segments of their society. Id. In re W-G-R, 26, I&N Dec. at 217.
A. “Origin country Lesbians” is a Legally Cognizable Social Group
First, a particular social group is “‘a group of persons all of whom share a common,
immutable characteristic.’” Crespin-Valladares, 632 F.3d at 124-25, quoting Matter of Acosta,
19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 233 (BIA 1985), overruled on other grounds by Matter of Mogharrabi, 19
I. & N. Dec. 439 (BIA 1987). This shared characteristic must be one “that the members of the
group either cannot change, or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to
their individual identities or consciences.” Id. at 124 (internal quotation marks omitted). The
BIA has recognized homosexuality is an immutable characteristic fundamental to a person’s
identity. Matter of Toboso-Alfonso, 20 I. & N. Dec. 819, 822-23 (BIA 1990). The Attorney
General designated Toboso-Alfonso “as precedent in all proceedings involving the same issue or
issues,” which is to say homosexuals seeking asylum by way of membership in a particular
social group. See Attorney Gen. Order No. 1895-94 (June 19, 1994). The social group of Origin
country lesbians is further defined by the immutable characteristics of gender and nationality.
See Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 233-34 (BIA 1985).
Further, the particular social group of Origin country lesbians is defined with sufficient
particularity to render the group a “discrete class of persons.” Crespin-Valladares, 632 F.3d at
125. The group includes only Origin country, female homosexuals and is “at least as particular
and well-defined as other groups whose members have qualified for asylum.” See id. (internal
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
quotation marks omitted). This distinguishes it from groups like “noncriminal informants”,
8
which have been found to lack particularity due to variable membership, and makes it much
more akin to accepted social groups bearing similar immutable characteristics such as “young
women of the Tchamba-Kusuntu Tribe who have not undergone female genital mutilation.”
9
This is important because a particular social group must be “at least as particular and well-
defined as other groups whose members have qualified for asylum.”
10
Finally, Origin country lesbians are socially distinct as members of a particular social
group because Origin country society recognizes them as such. Under the BIA’s current social
distinction test, a particular social group must be viewed as “socially distinct within the society
in question”. Matter of W-G-R, 25 I&N Dec 208 (BIA 2014); Matter of M-E-V-G, 26 I&N Dec.
227 (BIA 2013). Origin country law, in both its criminal and civil code, recognizes and
penalizes homosexual individuals, which includes lesbians. Origin country gay men and lesbians
routinely suffer persecution, arbitrary arrest, threats, violence, and rejection by their families and
communities due to their sexual orientation.
11
Article 347 of the Origin country Penal Code
states that “Any person who has sexual relations with a person of the same sex shall be punished
with a term of imprisonment of up to five years and a fine of between 20,000 and 200,000
francs.”
12
See Tab P. Section 52(3) of the Origin country Civil Status Registration prohibits that
“No marriage may be celebrated: if the spouses to be are of the same sex”. Tab M. The very
existence of these laws shows that Origin country society; i.e. through the arm of its government,
8
Matter of C-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 951 (BIA 2006).
9
Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996).
10
Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 125 (4
th
Cir. 2011).
11
See UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 2013 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT:
h
h
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
recognizes homosexuals as a distinct group of people whose behavior is regulated differently
than non-homosexuals. These laws are consistent with the beliefs of the overwhelming majority
of Origin countrys; in 2002, roughly 92% of Origin countrys condemned homosexuality,
13
and in
2013, the news site IRIN labeled the nation “one of the world’s most homophobic countries.”
14
From a cultural perspective, “[c]ontrary to the West, where homosexuality is commonly
viewed as an increasingly acceptable sexual orientation, in Origin country it is perceived as
anathema to the country's religion, roots and culture.”
15
Human Rights Watch has reported that
“[o]rdinary citizens at times express virulent hatred toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) people,”
16
and “[p]eople commonly say that homosexuality is foreign and
negates African values…Some people interviewed consider it a ‘perversion,’ a ‘cult,’ or
‘sorcery.’”
17
The particular social group of Origin country lesbians meets the requirements of a
shared immutable characteristic, particularity, and social distinction.
Furthermore, Ms. DOE Jane is undoubtedly a member of this group. Ms. DOE Jane
discovered her sexual orientation around 2004 and began her relationship with her lesbian
partner Sally in 2006. See Tab C at ¶¶19-40. After Ms. DOE Jane entered a lesbian relationship
13
U.S. BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES F
14
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
with her partner, her associations with lesbian women who, “given their accoutrements and their
tomboyish appearances”, gave rise to rumors amongst her neighbors and family; her salon
became known as a “corner of the lesbians” Tab C at ¶¶47-48; see also Tabs G-I. Her neighbors
would call her “sorceress” or “witch”, common epithets for lesbians as they are often accused by
their community of witchcraft or sorcery. See Tab O. Ms. DOE Jane freely associated and
continued her intimate relationship with her partner Sally despite vocal condemnation from her
neighbors, threats from her Uncle Frank, and a brutal beating by her Uncle George in 2008. See
Tab C at ¶¶75-77; see also Tabs D, G-I. Her adherence to her lesbian orientation and her
commitment to her lesbian partner culminated in her agreement to marry Sally, despite its
illegality and the danger it posed. See Tab C at ¶80-93; see also Tab H. Despite the abuses she
has suffered and the physical separation from her partner, Ms. DOE Jane is still committed to
Sally and one day hopes to reunite with her. Tab C at ¶138.
1. Ms. DOE Jane was Persecuted on Account of her Membership in the Particular Social
Group of “Origin country Lesbians”
Ms. DOE Jane must demonstrate that she fears persecution “on account of” a protected
ground.
18
Persecution occurs “on account of” a protected ground if that ground serves as ‘at
least one central reason for’ the feared persecution.”
19
The Fourth Circuit recognizes that an
asylum applicant need not show that nexus to a protected ground was “‘the central reason or
even a dominant central reason’ for [her] persecution, [s]he must demonstrate that these ties are
more than ‘an ‘incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate’ reason” for her persecution.”
20
18
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
19
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).
20
Crespin-Valladares, 632 F.3d at 127 (internal citations omitted).
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
In Ms. DOE Jane’s case, there is ample evidence that she was persecuted because of her
sexual orientation.
21
The first time Ms. DOE Jane was persecuted on account of her sexual
orientation occurred when she was raped by Mr. Jack Sprat in February . Right before he
raped Ms. DOE Jane, he told her that, “you don’t want to follow me because you follow girls.
Now you are going to see what I do.” Tab C. at 28. When Ms. DOE Jane became pregnant, he
told her it could not be his child because she was a lesbian”. Id. at ¶29.
The second incident of persecution occurred in 2008 when Ms. DOE Jane’s Uncle Frank
threatened to have her beaten and stripped naked if she did not “change her ways” because she
was “always with these witches”. Id. at ¶53. Ms. DOE Jane understood her uncle was referring
to her lesbian friends because lesbians are often accused of “sorcery” or being in a “cult”. See
Tab O. The motivation for the beating by her Uncle George on November , two months
after Uncle Frank’s threat could not have been any clearer. George told Ms. DOE Jane that he
had witnessed her with Sally and that her daughter’s birthday party was “full of lesbians”. See
Tab C at ¶ 60. As he was beating her, Ms. DOE Jane heard him say to the neighbors, “if
someone tries to stop me, I will kill you…If one of your daughters loves another woman, is that
going to please you? What type of education are you going to give to your daughters? What are
you going to bring to this family? Have you forgotten our culture?” Id at ¶¶61-62. After he was
done beating her, George warned Ms. DOE Jane that “if I ever see you with that woman, I am
going to kill you.” Id at ¶63.
21
According to the Asylum Officer Basic Training Course, “Lesbians often experience harm as a result of their
gender as well as their sexual orientation. The types of harm that a lesbian may suffer will frequently parallel the
harms in claims filed by women in general more closely than the harm in gay male asylum claims.” Officer
Training, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., at 24.
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
Despite this brutal beating, Ms. DOE Jane continued her relationship with Sally. Id at
¶74-77. In 2010, her father came to Ms. DOE Jane and demanded physical custody of her
daughter X; Ms. DOE Jane obeyed her father to appease his anger. Id at ¶78; see also Tab G.
Ms. DOE Jane’s lesbian sexual orientation was at least one central motivation for her father’s
actions; he did so after being informed by his elder brother Frank that Ms. DOE Jane “was
continuing her lesbian lifestyle and that [he] needed to take [his] granddaughter so she wouldn’t
follow the same lifestyle as her mother”. See Tab G. Whether his intention was to persecute Ms.
DOE Jane or “protect” his granddaughter was irrelevant; denying custody of his granddaughter
to Ms. DOE Jane was on account of her sexual orientation as a lesbian. A subjective intent to
harm or punish an applicant is not required for a finding of persecution. See Pitcherskaia v. INS,
118 F.3d 641, 646-48 (9th Cir. 1997) (Russian government’s attempt to “cure” lesbian applicant
established persecution)
The motivation by the police to raid the marriage ceremony and subsequent actions in
order to apprehend Ms. DOE Jane for committing this illegal act; including attempting to detain
her, to pursue her for arrest and destroy her salon, is clear from the circumstances. Tab C at
¶¶94-106. There was no other apparent purpose for the police to enter the property other than
the fact that a same-sex marriage was occurring. The marriage ceremony was being conducted
with the property owner’s consent. See Tab C at ¶89; Tab H. Furthermore, there is direct
evidence regarding the police’s motivation when they told Ms. DOE Jane’s brother that they
were seeking her for conducting an illegal wedding. Tab C at ¶101. Her neighbor
also witnessed the police repeatedly searching for Ms. DOE Jane and later learned that Ms. DOE
Jane had an illegal, i.e. same-sex, marriage. See Tab I. Her own father was subjected to jeers in
the marketplace that Ms. DOE Jane was being searched by the police because she was a lesbian.
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
See Tab G. The record is clear that Ms. DOE Jane has been repeatedly persecuted by her family
members, acquaintances and the Origin country police on account for being a Origin country
Lesbian.
B. Ms. DOE Jane is a Origin country Female Member of the Jane Family Who Has
Dishonored her family by means of her Sexual Orientation as a Lesbian and Has
been Persecuted on Account of this Membership
As discussed above, a particular social group must be immutable, particular and socially
distinct. Ms. DOE Jane also is a member of “Origin country female members of the Jane family
who have brought dishonor because of their sexual orientation as a Lesbian”, which holds many
of the same characteristics of her first social group including, homosexual orientation, gender,
and nationality,
22
but this group adds tribe,
23
and family
24
two characteristics that are also
immutable because they are innate and an individual does not have the power to alter them.
“Having brought dishonor” is also an immutable trait because it arises out of circumstances that
have already occurred and cannot be changed; (“Sometimes the characteristic is immutable
because a shared past experience or status has imparted a status or labeling that cannot be
undone”), Cece v. Holder, 733 F. 3d 662 (7th Cir. 2013) citing Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. at 133.
Furthermore, it holds even greater particularity because it further limits the group than the
formulation of “Origin country Lesbians”. This group is also socially distinct in addition to the
reasoning applied to the particular social group of “Origin country Lesbians” because family
membership has been widely recognized as socially visible. See Crespin-Valladares v. Holder,
22
See, Matter of V-T-S-, 21 I&N Dec. 792 (BIA 1997) (nationality immutable in social group of Filipinos of mixed
Filipino-Chinese ancestry).
23
See Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (clan membership is inextricably linked to family ties and thus immutable in
particular social group including the Tchamba-Kunsuntu Tribe); In Re H- 21 I&N Dec. 337, 342 (BIA 1996)
(accepting “clan membership” as an immutable characteristic because it is “inextricably linked to family ties”).
24
Family membership as defined by kinship ties is another immutable characteristic. A family’s “kinship ties” are
precisely the type of “innate” characteristic that is immutable. Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. at 233.
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
632 F.3d 117, 124 (4
th
Cir. 2011) (“[We] can conceive of few groups more readily identifiable
than the family”; see also In re C-A, 23 I&N Dec. 951 at 959 (BIA 2006).
Ms. DOE Jane has been targeted for persecution by the male members of her family,
namely her father and paternal uncles Frank and George, in order to punish her for her refusal to
conform to a heterosexual orientation which they and Origin country society perceive as an act
that brings shame and dishonor to the entire family. There is no history of her family members
targeting homosexuals otherwise. Her Uncle Frank warned her that “it seems like you don’t
understand when we talk to you, and I don’t have the strength to break you into pieces, so I am
going to ask your Uncle George to beat you very hard if you don’t change your ways”. Tab C at
¶53. Two months later when she was beaten by her Uncle George for overt displays of affection
towards her lesbian partner Sally, he stated that “I will not accept this situation, even if my
brother allows his daughter to live this way”. Id. at ¶62. He further articulated that “If one of
your daughters loves another woman, is that going to please you? What type of education are
you going to give to your daughters? What are you going to bring to this family? Have you
forgotten our culture?” Id. When Ms. DOE Jane’s father found out why his brother had beaten
her up, he condoned his brother’s actions when he told her that “If the reason is because your life
with other women, I cannot deal with that. I cannot accept that. I cannot have a child that does
that”. See Tab C at ¶67; see also Tab G. Her father concluded his scolding by telling her, “You
have no right to do that to me. Why do you do that? You bring shame on me.” See Tab C at
¶67; see also Tab G. It is clear from the statements and actions of her uncles and father that one
central reason for their motivation to harm her was connected to the shame brought to their
family because of her homosexuality. Circumstantial evidence further supports this nexus.
the country conditions expert, explains in her affidavit that certain ethnic
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
groups, including the X people—of whom Ms. Jane is a member—hold homosexuality in
especially poor regard, viewing it as disruptive of traditional ideas and contrary to the expected
gender-specific behavior. See Tab J.
C. Ms. DOE Jane was Persecuted on Account of her Political Opinion
Political opinion encompasses far more than electoral or formal political ideology and action.
The “behavior an applicant seeks to advance as political” “must be motivated by an ideal or
conviction of sorts before it will constitute grounds for asylum.” Perafan-Saldarriaga v.
Gonzalez, 402 F.3d 461, 466 (4th Cir. 2005) (dismissing the applicant’s claim because the
applicant did not argue that his actions “were grounded in principle, inspired by altruism, or
intended to advance a cause, as a political opinion applicant must show”). Courts have repeatedly
found that feminist ideals, opposition to male-dominated cultural norms and the “role and status
of women” in the community, are all forms of political expression. Such overt expressions are
not even necessary to establish political opinion for asylum purposes. “Less overtly symbolic
acts may also reflect political opinion.” Saldarriaga v. Gonzalez, 402 F.3d 461, 466 (4th Cir.
2005).
25
In Ms. DOE Jane’s case, she was persecuted based on her political opinion that lesbian
women should not have to conform to a heterosexual orientation and should be able to marry
their same-sex partner. Tab C at ¶¶8, 13, 46. While Ms. DOE Jane did repeatedly deny her
homosexuality to her family, she did tell clients and neighbors who questioned her sexuality that
25
Accord, USCIS Asylum Officer Basic Training Course: Female Asylum Applicants and Gender-Related Claims
(Mar.12, 2009), available at:
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Humanitarian/Refugees%20&%20Asylum/Asylum/AOBTC%20Lesson%20Plans/Fe
male-Asylum-Applicants-Gender-Related-Claims-31aug10.pdf (noting that “opposition to institutionalized
discrimination of women, expressions of independence from male social and cultural dominance in society, and
refusal to comply with traditional expectations of behavior associated with gender (such as dress codes and the role
of women in the family and society) may all be expressions of political opinion.”).
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
she did not care what they thought or told them that “I will do whatever I want to do, and no one
has the right to judge me.” Id at ¶¶47, 76. Ms. DOE Jane’s salon, patronized by gay men and
women, became known as “the corner of lesbians”. Id at ¶¶40, 76; see also Tab H & I. Some of
her presumable non-homosexual clients stopped patronizing her salon. Tab C at ¶76. Ms. DOE
Jane’s political opinion was most clearly demonstrated by her decision to marry her lesbian
partner in March . Id. at ¶¶82-93. Ms. DOE Jane disobeyed a law that she did not agree
with according to her moral conscience and to exercise a right that she believed she was entitled.
As previously discussed, her refusal to conform to a heterosexual orientation led to threats of
beatings, death and a brutal assault by her paternal uncles. Id at ¶¶52-63. Her marriage
ceremony to her lesbian partner led to a police raid, attempted arrest, pursuit by the police and
destruction of her salon. Id at ¶¶94-106. Under these circumstances, Ms. DOE Jane’s actions
clearly amount to an expression of political opinion and civil disobedience, akin to activists in
the United States in the 1960’s who conducted sit-ins to express their opposition to laws they
believed were unjust, and her actions caused her to suffer persecution.
III. MS. DOE JANE IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF A WELL-
FOUNDED FEAR OF FUTURE PERSECUTION
A showing of past persecution raises a presumption that the applicant has demonstrated a
well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). Where a showing of past
persecution has been established, the Department of Homeland Security bears the burden of
establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that either (1) there has been a fundamental
change in circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution
or (2) the applicant could avoid persecution by internally relocating. Id. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)-(ii).
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
Ms. DOE Jane’s personal circumstances have not fundamentally changed to negate a
finding of past persecution. Her familial persecutors, namely, her paternal uncles Frank and
George, are still living in Origin country. Tab C at ¶¶141. In 2012 after Ms. DOE Jane left
Origin country, her grandfather and father were subject to verbal abuse and threats that their
homes would be burned; as a result they were banished for a time from their home village by
their chief in punishment for Ms. DOE Jane’s disobedience and the dishonor that she brought to
her family. . See Tab C at ¶139; Tab G. They were only allowed back after Ms. DOE Jane’s
departure from Origin country was confirmed. Id. This “outing” of Ms. DOE Jane and the high-
profile of banishment, albeit temporary, from the family village only heightens the danger she
will face from her own family upon return. See Tab C at ¶140; see also Tab E. Moreover, as
discussed below, country conditions in Origin country for homosexuals have not changed since
Ms. DOE Jane fled. If anything, they have gotten worse, as the Origin country government
considers increasing the maximum penalties for violating Origin country’s anti-gay law and
continues to arrest lesbians and allow the murder of a gay activist in to go unpunished.
A. Country Conditions in Origin country for Homosexuals Have Not Improved
As previously discussed, homosexuality is illegal in Origin country and the laws remain
unchanged today. Origin country has a history of government sanctioned discrimination and
brutality against homosexuals and continues to have one of the most aggressive records for
enforcing their anti-homosexuality laws in the world. See Tabs O, Q-U. There have been recent
calls by the Origin country National media outlets and political and cultural leaders to reinforce
stereotypes with regularity, adding to the stigma associated with outwardly homosexual
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
individuals. Those acts are now “fue[l]ing prejudice and hatred against LGBTI individuals.”
26
In
August , for example, “ , the newly appointed administrator of the Catholic
Archdiocese of and the archbishop of , condemned homosexuality as a foreign
practice and called on Africans to ‘resist what will destroy their culture and family.’” Tab N.
Major newspapers within Origin country have published articles labeling numerous individuals
as homosexual in an attempt to “out” them to the public, and other media outlets have stated that
“rich, power-hungry homosexuals” threaten to “tak[e] over” the country.
27
On August 21, 2012,
a nationally-publicized “gay hate day” was held in Origin country to denounce those who engage
in same-sex relations. See Tabs S & FF.
Moreover, the pervasive and widespread nature of such anti-gay sentiment in Origin
country has frequently resulted in frequent and systemic violence directed at homosexual
individuals and those with whom they associate. Attacks against gays and lesbians take place
across the nation, inside and outside the home, and are perpetrated by ordinary citizens and
families of homosexuals as well as police and government officials. See Tab O. In May of 2012,
a mob in Yaoundé, Origin country ravaged a home in order to break up an LGBT gathering
taking place there; they beat, robbed, and stripped naked many of those present. See Tab R.
Witnesses later reported that members of the mob justified their actions by stating simply,
“They’re homosexual; we need to eliminate them.” See Tab Q In 2013, “[t]he Movement of
Origin country Youth organized anti-homosexual brigades throughout the year….[including] a
26
h
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
public march to urge a more heavy-handed government crackdown on homosexuality. Suspected
members of the LGBT community received anonymous threats by telephone, text message, and
e-mail.” See Tab N. Origin country lesbians have reported that they must hide their sexual
orientation or risk subjection to social marginalization, name-calling, or extreme violence. See
Tab O. Quite simply, one woman explained, “If they find out you are gay, they will kill you.” Id.
This is consistent with Ms. DOE Jane’s own experience. When the police raided her marriage
ceremony, Ms. DOE Jane could hear an onlooker yell, “Set them on fire. Beat them, kill them.”
Tab C at ¶96; this is corroborated by her friend . Tab H. Professor
confirms that the “use of terms like ‘abomination’ and “set alight’, are
also common place, as are the ‘remedies’ that Origin country society employs to eliminate
homosexuality such as burning, torturing, and scarring with fire or burning objects. See Tab J.
In addition, the police in Origin country have a history of arresting suspected
homosexuals in public places, as well as in the privacy of their homes, despite lacking the
authority to do so.
28
On May in the Eastern Province of , police arrested two
women suspected of lesbian relations. While in custody, the two women were allegedly forced to
denounce four others as “accomplices.”
29
That case substantiates Ms. DOE Jane’s belief that it
was most likely some guest at her wedding who had been arrested that gave the police her name
and address. Tab A at ¶l02. In April , a gay rights workshop in the capitol city of
was shut down after authorities discovered that gay rights would be discussed. See Tab AA And
earlier this year, The Nation reporter Andy Kopsa interviewed a lesbian woman in Origin
28
Id. at 23.
h
f
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
country currently serving a 5-year sentence for alleged homosexuality.
30
According to
estimates, more than 200 individuals may currently be imprisoned in Origin country on charges
of same-sex sexual relations. See Tab N.
These arrests often occur without any objective evidence that a homosexual act has taken
place, and result in individuals being kept in prison for months or years without charge. See Tabs
N & U. While such detainees are entitled to legal representation, many lawyers remain hesitant
to associate themselves with gays and lesbians, as LGBT legal advocates have received death
threats from anti-homosexual groups and individuals. See Tab S. Further, “[p]rosecutors appear
not to feel compelled even to build evidence against the detainees; one witness who claims a
person is a homosexual can be enough to sway a judge.” See Tab O at 20. Once imprisoned,
homosexuals are routinely subjected to detention conditions that the State Department has
described as “harsh and life threatening.” See Tab N at 4. Those suspected of same-sex relations
endure verbal disparagement, beatings, and intrusive anal examinations—used to confirm or
deny their homosexuality—at the hands of police and prison officials. See Tab O. They also face
pressure from police to expose homosexual friends and partners, and often endure physical abuse
if they refuse to do so. Id. Police violence against gays and lesbians in Origin country is so
severe that in 2012, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission stated that
some documented cases of police beatings of homosexuals “rise to the level of torture.” See Tab
R.
Such reports indicate that Origin country police not only fail to stem violence directed at
suspected gays and lesbians, but in fact condone and frequently participate in such attacks. Tab
30
available at
http://www at 3 (Exhibit ).
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
S at 28, 32. Many gays and lesbians refrained from seeking police protection or prosecution of
those who victimized them for fear of being detained or subjected to further violence. Origin
country security forces “actively targeted LGBT individuals and cooperated with vigilante
groups to entrap them” (Tab N) “LGBT individuals who sought services or protection from the
authorities were regularly rebuffed, extorted, or arrested” upon seeking such assistance.
31
In
2009, a Origin country man notified police after a group of thugs physically assaulted him on the
street. See Tab R. When authorities arrived, they accused the man of being homosexual,
detained him, and released his attackers.
32
When the journalist and outspoken LGBT activist
was found bound, beaten, and strangled to death in his home in in
July , Origin country authorities launched what the U.S. State Department described as a
“uniformly unprofessional” investigation, and then failed to identify any suspects in the murder
by the year’s end. See Tab N. This appears to reflect the typical response of Origin country law
enforcement to incidents of violence against LGBT individuals. For example, the Immigration
and Refugee Board of Canada has stated that there is “no state protection” available to those who
face discrimination or threats due to their sexual orientation,
33
and Human Rights Watch
researchers wrote in a 2010 report that “[n]o one interviewed for this report knew of a single case
of arrest or prosecution of perpetrators in incidents of violence against individuals on the grounds
of sexual orientation and/or gender expression.” See Tab O & R. Police remained equally
31
Id
p
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
unaccountable for any rights abuses they perpetrated: in , Amnesty International reported
that over the last three years, it was not aware of any member of law enforcement who had faced
charges of carrying out torture or ill-treatment.
34
Moreover, the danger of female subjection to violence only increases for lesbian women:
y, who served as the UN special rapporteur on violence against women
from , has observed that, “Gender-based violence ... is particularly acute when
combined with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
35
Because men in a Origin
country family “control the intimate lives of women,” girls are more likely to be singled out for
conduct that fails to meet accepted social norms or that is considered unfeminine.
36
Women
suspected of homosexual activity can be “specifically targeted” for rape or sexual attacks, lose
custody of their children, or endure physical abuse at the hands of family members.
37
B. Ms. DOE Jane Cannot Avoid Persecution by Internally Relocating
In Ms. DOE Jane’s situation, internal relocation is not a viable possibility. By
Regulation, relocation must be reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. 8 C.F.R. §
208.13(b)(1)(i)(B). See also, Matter of M-Z-M-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 28 (2012)(clarifying how
adjudicators must analyze the reasonableness of internal relocation). Furthermore, “in cases in
which the persecutor is a government or is government-sponsored, or the applicant has
established persecution in the past, it shall be presumed that internal relocation would not be
reasonable, unless the service establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, under all the
circumstances, it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(3)(ii)
34
MAKE HUMAN RIGHTS A REALITY, supra note , at 11 (Exhibit S).
35
Id. at 45.
36
Id. at 37.
37
Id. at 5.
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
(2007). As discussed, homosexuality is illegal in all of Origin country. The government of
Origin country has repeatedly snubbed international efforts to curb the nation’s abuse of
homosexuals and those who advocate on their behalf, evidencing its continued commitment to
promoting anti-gay rhetoric and policy. Since in response to Origin country’s zealous
enforcement of Article 347, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
(WGAD), UN Human Rights Council, and UN Human Rights Committee have called upon the
Origin country government to repeal the law and work to stem prejudice against gays and
lesbians.
38
To date, Origin country government officials continue to advocate for the practice of
Article 347 in an effort to preserve “positive African cultural values,” since “homosexuality is
not a value accepted in Origin country society.”
39
And because Article 347 is a federal law
enforced throughout Origin country, homosexuals cannot seek internal relocation as a solution to
the rights abuses and violence they consistently endure. Indeed, gays and lesbians individuals
undergo brutalization in small villages as well as Origin country’s major cities, with one human
rights worker reporting that she receives “four calls a week” from LGBT individuals living in
rural areas.
40
As the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has argued, “[t]here is no place, in
countries such as…Origin country, to which a gay [person] could safely relocate without making
fundamental changes to his behav[io]r which he cannot make simply because he is gay.”
41
It is clear that Ms. DOE Jane’s name has become known by police as evinced by her
narrow escape from being arrested and the police’s subsequent search to locate her at her
38
CRIMINALIZING IDENTITIES, supra note , at 6 (Exhibit ).
39
Id. at 10.
40
Kopsa, supra note , at 1 (Exhibit ).
41
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Judgment in the Matter of HJ and HT v. Secretary of State for the Home
Department, available at http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2009_0057_Judgment.pdf, at 10
(Exhibit ).
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
residence and business. Tab C at ¶¶97-106. Since the police and gendarmerie collaborate on
security mandates, “it is plausible that someone in Ms. Jane’s position would be under
surveillance by various factions of local security forces, as she has already been a target of a
police raid as a result of her homosexual marriage.” Tab J. Additionally, Ms. DOE Jane
believes that her uncles could “bribe the police or use the X community to track [her] down”.
Tab C at ¶141. That threat is credible because “throughout Origin country, immediate family
and extended kin networks are most likely to enforce the social order through violence”. Tab J.
Given her uncles’ ability to bribe police and use ethnic networks, Ms. DOE Jane’s only
hope of survival upon return would be to go into hiding. The Fourth Circuit has found relocation
unreasonable where it required an asylum applicant to hide from her persecutors. See, Essohou v.
Gonzalez, 471 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2006). Therefore, in Ms. DOE Jane’s case it would be
ineffective and unreasonable for her to internally relocate to avoid persecution either from the
Origin country government or her family.
IV. THE ORIGIN COUNTRY GOVERNMENT IS UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO
PROTECT MS. DOE JANE FROM INTRA-FAMILY VIOLENCE
As discussed above, the laws and customs of Origin country deprive Ms. DOE Jane of
any meaningful recourse of government protection from intra-family violence or violence from
non-family members who might target her on account of her sexual orientation. See Sec. III,
supra. An applicant for asylum must demonstrate that past persecution was committed either by
the government or by forces the government is unwilling or unable to control. See Crespin-
Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4
th
Cir. 2010). As previously discussed, in
Jane’s case, one of the persecutors is the Origin country government itself but she is
also at danger of being persecuted by her male family members. The Government of Origin
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
country, as will be discussed below, is unwilling to protect Ms. DOE Jane from persecution
perpetrated by her family members.
Throughout Origin country, women are uniformly and consistently regarded second-class
citizens. Though the Origin country Constitution recognizes women’s rights in certain
provisions, women “[do] not enjoy the same rights and privileges as men,” and “some provisions
of civil law [are] prejudicial to women.”
42
In addition, Origin country “is a patriarchal society in
which customs and traditions thrive and are promoted in spite of existing modern laws.”
43
As
such, even where civil laws exist that protect women, they are often rebuffed in favor of
customary laws that (among other injustices) deny women the right to inherit from their
husbands,
44
consider them the “property” of their new spouse once they are married,
45
and confer
paternal figures such as uncles, fathers, brothers, and boyfriends “physical disciplinary power”
over women.
46
Professor opines in her affidavit that “Ms. Jane’s uncles and father
could beat and abuse her without interference from the police, as such attacks are not illegal
under national criminal law.” See Tab J.
This climate of gender inequality, in turn, “creates a fertile ground for violence.
47
”
According to a 2007 CEDAW Shadow Report, “53% of women are subjected to one form of
violence or another from the age of 15.” Tab O. Such abuse is more likely to occur in the “family
sphere than in the public sphere”
48
since women’s “access to public space is highly restricted.”
49
Girls and women subjected to family-based violence often have little recourse under the
42
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
law, as “domestic violence is not recognized as a specific crime in Origin country,” and as
authorities and ordinary Origin countrys alike accept violence against women as a “way of
life.”
50
NGOs working within Origin country note that gender-based violence, though common,
usually goes underreported.
51
When lesbian women face intra-family violence, their family
members—even other females—may feel so disdainful of the homosexual activity that they fail
to stop beatings that occur inside the home; one lesbian woman told Human Rights Watch that
though her grandmother witnessed her father violently beating her because of her sexual
orientation, the grandmother did nothing to stop it.
52
Lesbian women face arrest, imprisonment,
and physical abuse at the hands of authorities should they seek to prosecute their victimizers (and
in doing so necessarily disclose their sexual orientation).
53
Though Origin country created the
Ministry of Women’s Affairs (now called the Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and Family)
in to improve women’s access to justice in Origin country, human rights organizations
could find no indication that any lesbian women or girls had actually received assistance by the
Ministry by .
54
And while a pending federal bill exists to prevent and punish gender-based
violence against women, the bill “is yet to be approved and does not include violence within the
family, much less any reference to the particular forms of violence that lesbian and bisexual
women and girls might face.”
55
As the World Organization Against Torture has noted, “Overall,
the government of Origin country fails to protect women from violence whether at the hands of
50
51
CRIMINALIZING IDENTITIES, supra note, at 44 (ExhibitO ).
52
Id.
53
Id.
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
private individuals or state officials…while Origin country has a duty under international law to
act with due diligence to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish all forms of violence against
women, irrespective of whether this violence is committed by public or private individuals, this
obligation has not been adequately implemented at the national level.”
56
Thus, Origin country is
clearly unwilling to protect women in the position of Ms. DOE Jane.
V. MS. DOE JANE HAS A WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF FUTURE
PERSECUTION ON ACCOUNT OF HER MEMBERSHIP IN TWO
PARTICULAR SOCIAL GROUPS AND POLITICAL OPINION
An applicant for asylum has a well-founded fear of persecution if she (1) fears
persecution on account of the protected grounds, (2) there is a reasonable possibility of suffering
if she were forced to return, and (3) she is unable or unwilling to return to, or avail herself of the
protection of the country because of such fear. 8 C.F.R. 208.13(b)(2)(i). A “reasonable
possibility of suffering” has been further clarified to constitute a 10% probability that the
persecution feared will happen. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 440 (1987). As
demonstrated below, there is at least a 10% chance that Ms. DOE Jane’s life is at risk in Origin
country on account of the protected grounds.
A. The Harm Ms. DOE Jane Fears Rises to the Level of Persecution
Ms. DOE Jane narrowly escaped arrest prior to departing Origin country. She fears that
if forced to return to Origin country, she will be imprisoned, raped, tortured, and killed. This
fear undoubtedly rises to the level of persecution.
B. Ms. DOE Jane Subjectively and Objectively Fears Persecution
56
OMCT Press Release, at 2 (Exhibit CC).
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
To establish a well-founded fear of persecution, the applicant must establish that she both
subjectively and objectively fears persecution. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-31
(1987). To meet the requirement of the subjective element, an applicant needs to show that her
fear is genuine. See, e.g., Carvajal-Munoz v. INS, 743 F.2d 562, 574 (7th Cir. 1984). An
applicant meets the objective standard by showing that a reasonable person in the same
circumstances would fear persecution and that the fear has “some basis in the reality of the
circumstances” and is validated with “specific, concrete facts.” M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 311
(4th Cir.1990). Ms. DOE Jane’s fear is subjectively genuine. She explicitly fears that she may
be killed, beaten, tortured, imprisoned, or otherwise harmed, if she returns to Origin country.
See Tab C at ¶¶140; see also Form I-589.Ms. DOE Jane’s fears are concretely grounded in
reality. Her partner Sally and her friend Hermine were arrested, tortured and had to flee Origin
country in order to escape imprisonment. See Tab C & H. Ms. DOE Jane was almost arrested
and is now a fugitive from the Origin country police. See Tab C at ¶¶94-108. As discussed in
Section III.A, supra, homosexuality remains illegal in Origin country with numerous arrests of
lesbians confirmed in 2012, a gay rights activist recently arrested in 2014
57
and rampant societal
intolerance for homosexuality. Given the current country conditions, a reasonable person in Ms.
DOE Jane’s situation would fear persecution upon her return to Origin country.
C. The Persecution Ms. DOE Jane Fears is on Account of her Membership in Two
Particular Social Groups and Political Opinion
For the reasons stated above in section I, supra (past persecution on account of
membership in social group and political opinion), Ms. DOE Jane fears future persecution on
account of those protected grounds.
57
Source: http://www
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
VI. Ms. DOE Jane is Unable and Unwilling to Avail Herself of the Protection of the
Government of Origin country
If forced to return to Origin country, Ms. DOE Jane would not be able to depend on the
protection of the Origin country government. See sections III to IV, supra. Ms. DOE Jane is a
known homosexual, and homosexuality is illegal throughout the country. Instead of protecting
her in the past, government officials persecuted her, including breaking up her marriage
ceremony, detaining and attempting to arrest her and damaging her business. See Tab C at ¶¶93-
108. Furthermore, corruption in Origin country is “pervasive”, including within its police force.
See Tab N.
VII. Ms. DOE Jane Cannot Avoid Persecution by Internally Relocating
An asylum applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant
could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality, if
such relocation were reasonable given the circumstances. 8 C.F.R. 208.13(b)(2)(ii). In Ms.
DOE Jane’s case, as previously addressed in Section IV.B.2, supra, internal relocation is not a
viable possibility.
VIII. There Are No Statutory Bars to a Grant Of Asylum
INA § 208(b)(2)(A) provides a list of statutory bars to granting asylum to an applicant.
None of these bars are applicable in this case. Ms. DOE Jane has never been accused of or
convicted of a serious crime. She is a law-abiding citizen and has no criminal record in Origin
country, the United States, or any other country. She has never firmly resettled in any country
other than the United States.
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
IX. ALTERNATIVELY, MS. DOE JANE’S APPLICATION FOR
WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL SHOULD BE GRANTED
An asylum application also constitutes an application for withholding of removal. 8
C.F.R. § 208.3(b). Withholding of removal is a mandatory form of relief available to applicants
who can show that their life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country of removal
on account of an enumerated ground. See INA § 241(b)(3)(A), 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b); 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3)(A).
The applicant’s burden of proof is satisfied by evidence of past persecution, absent an
affirmative showing by a preponderance of the evidence that there has either been a fundamental
change in circumstances or there is a reasonable possibility of avoiding persecution by relocating
within the country of persecution. 8 C.F.R. §208.16(b)(1). To establish a claim for withholding
of removal in the absence of past persecution, the applicant must show that the threat to life or
freedom is “more likely than not” to occur. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(b)(1)(iii), 1208.16(b)(2); see
also INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 414 (1984) (stating that to receive withholding of removal, an
applicant must establish a “clear” probability of persecution on account of one or more
enumerated grounds).
As detailed above, Ms. DOE Jane suffered past persecution. Section II.A, supra. Given
that she is known by Origin country police throughout the country, is an identified lesbian and
fugitive, and has male family members who have beaten and threatened to kill her, it is more
likely than not that Ms. DOE Jane would be subjected to future persecution if forced to return to
Origin country. Prior to her departure in Ms. DOE Jane only narrowly escaped
arrest by Origin country authorities, and her departure occurred immediately after this attempt.
See Section I., supra.
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
X. MS. DOE JANE IS ENTITLED TO WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL UNDER
THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
Torture is defined as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as . . . punishing him or her for an
act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or
intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person . . . when such pain or suffering is inflicted
by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person
acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. §208.18(a)(1). Ms. DOE Jane believes that upon her
return to Origin country that she will be subjected to arrest, imprisonment, torture or murder by
the Origin country police. See Tab C at ¶140. Her fears are supported by the experiences of her
friend Hermine and her partner Sally who were subjected to imprisonment and severe beatings,
as well as country conditions in Origin country for homosexuals as discussed in Section III.A,
supra. See Tab H. Additionally, Ms. DOE Jane faces a severe risk of being severely harmed and
killed in Origin country, by her uncles or private individuals, as discussed in Sections I-III.A.,
supra. Ample country conditions show that the Origin country government acquiesces to
violence against homosexuals by non-government actors as well as intra-family violence through
its non-action. See Sections III.A and IV, supra. Accordingly, Ms. DOE Jane is entitled to
withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture.
XI. Ms. DOE Jane’s Past Persecution Compels a Grant of Humanitarian Asylum
Ms. DOE Jane has demonstrated past persecution in the form of rape, a brutal beating,
death threats, denial of fundamental rights of liberty and a well-founded fear of future
persecution. Even if the Court finds that she has not demonstrated a well-founded fear of
persecution, her circumstances compel a grant based on humanitarian asylum. An applicant who
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
has suffered past persecution may be granted humanitarian asylum if she has demonstrated (1)
“compelling reasons for being unwilling or unable to return to that country arising out the
severity of the past persecution,” or (2) “that there is a reasonable possibility . . . she may suffer
other serious harm upon removal to that country.” See 8 C.F.R. §208.13(b)(1)(iii). Ms. DOE
Jane is eligible for humanitarian asylum under both subsections.
In Matter of Chen, the BIA held that where past persecution was so severe that it would
be inhumane to return an asylum applicant to her former country, past persecution may serve as
the basis of a grant of asylum, even absent a risk of future persecution. See Matter of Chen, 20
I&N Dec. 16, 21 (1989). In Ms. DOE Jane’s case, she endured being raped, brutally beaten,
threatened with violence and death and an attempted arrest for attempting to marry her partner.
As a result of this severe and atrocious persecution, Ms. DOE Jane suffers from severe
depression. See Tab K.
Even if the Court does not find that Ms. DOE Jane’s past persecution was sufficiently
compelling to warrant a grant of Matter of Chen humanitarian asylum, she has undoubtedly
suffered past persecution and faces other serious harm upon return to Origin country. Other
serious harm includes the basis for Respondent’s well-founded fear of future persecution,
including further death threats, intimidation, beatings, torture, and possibly rape. As a known
lesbian who is a fugitive from police, country conditions support that the likelihood of these
harms.
CONCLUSION
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
For the foregoing reasons, Ms. DOE Jane respectfully requests that she be granted
asylum, or in the alternative, withholding of removal under the INA or pursuant to the
Convention Against Torture.
Respectfully submitted, this _____ day of
___________________________
Deepa Bijpuria, Pro Bono Counsel (410) 999-1210 (telephone)
Tahirih Justice Center (410) 630-7539 (facsimile)
201 North Charles Street, Suite 920
Baltimore, MD 2120
1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
________________________________________
)
IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
Jane DOE JANE, ) File No.:
)
Respondent. ) In Removal Proceedings
_______________________________________ )
Immigration Judge David Crosland Next Hearing:
PROOF OF SERVICE
_____________________________ _____________________
Signature Date
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
Asylum - Defensive - Sample Brief - LGBT - Fourth Circuit
