Good morning. For those of you who werent here yesterday, my name is rathod, im the associate expeer enshal education at the Washington College of law. To welcome all of you here to the law school offer that welcome on not nly behalf of our law school, institutions ring as well as the American Lawyers Association nd our committee representatives. Again, thank you for everyone [applause] thank you for all of the hard work that the Planning Committee has put into making this event a success. Thanks to all of you. I know you all have very busy schedules. I appreciate your willingness for being here. Yesterday,f you here we have a series of enriching to face the challenges phasing migrant youth, some of world as s across the well as some of the ways the asylum system is being in the United States as well as how we can deeply the ore standards which is at the heart of the gathering. Yesterday and today to have such a broad range room, not onlyhe legal scholars and practitioners nd folks from the social sciences, Mental Health professionals, other health a fessionals, folks with broad range of expertise. Fruitful e very conversations yesterday and i hope theyll continue today. Through the conversations, we hope to identify paths forward. I want to acknowledge the staff rom the law school, from the center that made this event possible, many student and several Staff Members here at the Washington College of law including our relations team, the special events team and others. And for many of you, i know in the room work at nonprofit and you know how difficult it is to get the work done without the generous of donors who can resources financial we need to make these events possible. Want to acknowledge the sponsors for this event, jones ellis, baker and law offices of for your t, thanks support. [applause] and so were going to be of the g our second Day Conference with a presentation a Keynote Presentation from one of the in the field, were really delighted to have professor karen musalo. Needs no she introduction. Director at unding the u. C. Hastings college of law, its fair to say that she on the eading expert topic of genderbased asylum and fact that she is a lead leading treatise on the subject. He has authored numerous back chapters and articles and elative our project, she has litigated in cases serving as attorney in several cases. She has continued to publish in and has received numerous awards for her pioneering work in this area. Is going to be speaking to us about how we can protections in the area of genderbased violence. In warmly me welcoming professor karen musula. [applause] can people seet, me over the screen since i dont ave a box to stand on, ok, and everybody can hear me. So first of all, thank you for introduction. Rous second, i want to thank the of latin america loan studies and American College of committee, if ng i have left anybody out, i apologize, really an honor to be here and speak to you. From the panels yesterday, we root d on some of the causes for migration and we talked about genderbased womence, violence against and girls, gangs and so what i is talk about the law eviscerated by this administration to, the law to provide protection and the title it as asked to restoring protection and i will do i will talk about that, i think its important to give a little bit of the context of how this law developed and incredible sort of resistance to protecting women genderbased violence so that you understand how we got now and now we might get to a better place. For giving some of the history before i go into how i the hopeful part of think we can restore protection. All, the conceptual going back this area to the beginning of the intervehicles and protocol and state parties just didnt see of genderbased violence as fitting. Refugee definition, nationalality, opinion or membership in a particular social group. Inflicted on women werent seen as being persecution which refugee red for protection. Gender, you have to show that the persecution is on account of grounds, gender isnt one of the five grounds. That was another barrier. Concept of governments being the persecutors and often its are the prep who traitors of violence. Hese were seen as conceptual barriers, when the commission egan to see this resistance to extending protection, it put out 1985 ies of directives in and im oversimplifying grossly, what they ly counseled state parties to do as to see that harm would be persecution if it was a violation of human rights. The, you know, trapped in this concept that cultural norms or religious dictates, theyre iolations of human rights and percentage accusation and the particular social group ground definition could include groups defined by gender. Wouldnt have to be by the state, but a nonstate actor. Focus on the u. S. O in 1996, the b. I. A. , the board of immigration appeals issued the first precedent u. S. In cision in the he case involving female cutting, granting asylum, asylum for persecution of the female genital cutting. Photo is in detention. When she was out of detention asylum. Ted i would love to show that photo because i think it really the dehumanization of people behind bars and just, anyway, just leave you with that thought. There was this groundbreaking decision in 1996, there was a much more route to recognition for Domestic Violence survivors. Cutting. Male genital many of us thought that would of the door to all range gender persecution, but it easy route. An in 1999, the board of ofigration appeals in matter r. A. Reversed to a woman fleeing brutal Domestic Violence. His was during the Clinton Administration and Jeanette Reno and the Justice Department did two good things before the end that administration. Jeanette reno certified r. A. To vacated it and her Justice Department issued regulations that would have really contemplated survivors of Domestic Violence and other gender persecution. Were proposed ns in this 2000. Beenhave to this day never finalized. Thought the whole obama administration, we were like get those regulations finalized, it never happened. Contention depth of around this issue. Misr. A. Orward, herself was granted asylum by an immigration judge. T was as a level that wasnt binding precedent. Wasnt until the matter of arcg in 2014 that we actually decision saying that Domestic Violence could be claim. Is for an asylum so think about that, all the way to get a to 2014 decision saying that Domestic Violence could be a basis. Well see, that was not to be trump ved because of the administration. The first arcg do, decision recognizing Domestic Violence, it had a nature roe Legal Holding. It just recognized remember i talked about the particular social Group Definition and how used in cases involving gender persecution, it nature roe holding say this social Group Defined by women in guatemala unable to leave was a valid social group. Advocates really came in and used arcg to successfully for other cases. So not just of married women, unmarried women, girls forced into sexual relationships members, child abuse survivors. Revolutionary, but advocates really expanded to use it. What happened . Essions during his time as attorney general certified a ase called a. B. To himself and arcg and ino reverse arcg, he reversed the asylum to a. B. What did a. B. Do . I hate to show you a photo like this so early in the morning, can i say. The reason i add this is when the attorney general did this i was actually contacted by a reporter for the washington very proud of the fact that this back to the dark ages is what i said to the i said this refusal to ecognize gender violence or Domestic Violence is a violation of human rights and a basis for cranking us back of how we ages conceptualize human rights. That was the headline. I was ue, the point making and i think those of you in this room who know the history that womens this was human rights, pulling us back. This is a photo of miss a. B. Who chosen to maintain her anonymity. Sense of the ou a person herself. She did, if we had time, i would showed you, but they did a short video about her and her the talking about persecution. So her case had very strong facts. This isnt a case where the forrney general was looking a rape case, she was married to her abuser. With him. Ree children membersers brother was a of the salvadoran police. He police were largely unresponsive. When i say largely unresponsive issued her a ey protective order, this husband her, threatening her they uns and knifed and gave a protective order and said youront you serve this on husband. N enraged husband, serve the protective order is absurd. She moved away and the abuser tracked her down. After the divorce, he raped her fter the divorce and he told her that nothing but death would set her free from him. So on those facts, what did in the decision of the matter of a. B. I want to istinguish here between what sessions attempted to do and what he actually could do wlelly he is not operating in a vacuum. There is a body of precedent. He tried to do was to oreclose all claims based on Domestic Violence, other gender violence and fear of gang claims. He has the broad language generally claims by persons to Domestic Violence or Gang Violence will not qualify for asylum. He is trying to send the message, dont grant the claims. The Legal Holding is a lot older. Tatements about what the attorney thinks, so he rejects the social group formulation unmarried women unable to leave that actually had been a developed by the department of Homeland Security i said approved in arcg. He said that didnt meet the standard for a particular social group and remember i told you that the to be on account of and with Domestic Violence, we say the violence is on this person being a woman in this relationship. Her. s why the man abuses thats what domestic experts will say, but what sessions said is this is just personal. Its not about gender. Out and say arate Domestic Violence is not about about the this is ludicrousness of this. What are the actually holdings in addition to what i just told you questioning the questioning and nexus. Remember when i said it was a the individual has to show that the government to protect. To ried, sessions tried raise the standard for what it unwilling. Nable or he also suggested without any the nce that when ersecutor if you could relocate and not be persecuted, you dont qualify for asylum. So he said these things in the decision without any basis, really more of an opinion. So what happened in terms of challenges to a. B. . And this is sort of the restoring protection and whats happening and what are the strategies part begin. Im going to go over these four areas, challenges of the a. B. Decision in the context of expedited removal. We talk about expedited removal yesterday. Litigation in ms. A. B. s individual case. Nationwide trends in decisionmaking and particularly strategies. So expedited removal. Guidanceter of ab and that the uscis issues after ab strongly imply plied that dividuals fear of gang relations couldnt pass tt standard that someone must pass if youre an expedited removal. If youre an expedited removal and you dont show the screening standard for credible fear, you are removed. And youre not permitted to apply for asylum. So what the government was trying to do was anybody who appeared with a d. V. Claim or fear of gang to say after d. B. These claims dont qualify. So there was a challenge to that. Grace b. Whitaker which where the the District District Court judge in the district of columbia issued an injunction. We argued, we were cocouncil with the aclu and argued that the attorney general committed many legal errors in his ab decision. And the judge agreed. And he issued an injunction against the application of ab in this way, incredible fear. And that was a huge a huge step because it prevented the government from just, you know preemptoryly screening these people out and not permitting them to apply for asylum. Now, of course, the government has appealed and we are awaiting a decision from the d. C. Circuit court of appeals. And we dont know which way it will go. But for now, this can these ab and you know, cannot be used as justification to screen people out in the credible fear of process. Litigation in her own case. So as you know when an individual is denied asylum, one of the things you do in that individual case, you appeal it, and then through that appeal hope to have the underlying decision reversed. So after the attorney general issued his decision in matter of ab, it was sent back to the Immigration Court where we were permitted to put in more evidence. We put in about 1,000 more pages of evidence about gender violence in el value door, inability of the government to protect. Etc. , etc. I wont bore you with it. But a judge by the name of couch denied it again. I should tell you couch is one of these judges who has about a 95 asylum denial rate, which is not normal. For those who do not practice immigration law, not normal. He was also just recently appointed to be a judge. He was elevated, promoted to the board of immigration appeals. But the point im making is that it was remanded back to that same judge who denied it initially. And he denied it again. So we appealed to the board of immigration. Appealed we submitted our briefing just last month. And were waiting ifer the board of im for the board of immigration appeals to decide. The board of immigration appeals theoretically could find for her. Not likely. But if if the board of immigration appeals denies, then we get up to the Fourth Circuit court of appeals. So were in a federal court where if we prevail, we would hope to get, you know, reverse a lot of the legal reasoning in matter of a. B. And i should just say i spoke to grace b. Whitaker but that only applied to credible fear. So that doesnt restrain judges who want to deny on the merits because of the ab case. Ok so what in the face of this decision in matter of ab that tries to foreclose these claims, what is happening in reality to decisionmaking. So the center for gender and refuge study wes track and attorneys tell us about the outcomes in their cases. Its not a representative sarple. Its not come representative sample. Its nom comprehensive. Its that samp of attorneys who ask for helps for us and we wouldnt have any pro se cases because people who are not represented dont seek us. This is what weve seen in terms of trend. Weve seen 50 i. B. Cases in this area of d. V. Or fear of gang where there were 37 deniles and 13 remands back to the immigration judge. And generally, the b. I. A. Cites a decision of the a. B and after the a. G. Decided in matter of ab, not positive. Doesnt grant. But in Immigration Court weve seen something different. Weve seen 170 asylum or holding glants in d. V. Or child abuse cases. Although, there are many denials also. I dont want to paint an overly rosy picture. Weve seen at least 145 denials. But one interesting development, be more for the issue of legal theories here is that after the attorney general struck down the social group unmarried gat milan women unable to leif, theres social group that advocates have been trying to get recognized for a long time which is just gender and women. To say salvadoran women, gat milan women and a number of judges have been granting on that much more simple, straightforward articulation of social group, which is a positive thing. There are a number of Circuit Court decision. Some positive. But i dont want to paint an overly rosy picture. But you just see this little ittle pify quotes from them. This was a case padilla maldonado had proposed a social Group Similar to the one sessions rejected. And the court said her court has weakened but it doesnt defeat her claim recognizing that each case has to be judged on the case and the record. Here a judge had done exactly what i just said decided on gender and nationality and the board has reversed saying it was too broad. And the ninth circuit said, no, no, thats not too broad. Go back to the drawing board and look at this again. So these are some positive developments. Also people are raising because of social group basis hasnt worked that much in cases involving women who are asserting their rights not be beaten, attorneys are putting forward a political opinion basis because thats one of the five grounds. And feminism is a political opinion or the belief that a woman has the right not be beaten and subordinated by her male partner. And so this is being recognized by the courts also. And this court remanding to consider that this a political basis of the claim might have been a legitimate basis. So then theres some more negative decision. I know im running quite out of time. Gonzalezveliz v. Barr case where it was more mixed. Where the court doesnt ban these cases but the b. I. A. Was reasonable in finding that this was not a viable claim and a particular thing in this 11th circuit case. So Circuit Court decision all over the place. What are some of the broader strategys . Were tracking. Were assisting attorneys helping them build the record litigating ms. Abs case and were tracking case nationwide at the Circuit Court and b. I. A. Levels. Thats where we can win precedence in my last slide ill give you information how you can report an outcome in the case so that we can know whats happening. Because were intervening either as amicus or in other ways to bring our expertise to bear. There are five cases coming up for argument in the ninth circuit next month. And we have asked for