For those of you who were not here yesterday, my name is jayesh rathod, im the associate dean for expeer enshal its my pleasure to welcome all of you here to the law school and i offer that welcome on not only behalf of our law school, cosponsoring by ericions, led hershberg and dennis stinchcomb, as well as the American ImmigrationLawyers Association and 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 such a success. Thanks to all of you. I know you all have very busy schedules. I appreciate your willingness to be here. For those of you who were here yesterday, we have a series of enriching panels to face the facing migrant youth, some of the factors across the world, as well as some of the ways the asylum system is being challenged here in the United States as well as how we can understand more deeply the standards which is at the heart of the gathering. Were pleased yesterday and today to have such a broad range of experts in the room, not only legal scholars and practitioners but also folks from the social sciences, Mental Health professionals, other health professionals, folks with a broad range of expertise. We had some very fruitful conversations yesterday, and im sure they will continue today. Through the conversations, we hope to identify paths forward. I want to acknowledge the staff from the law school, from the center who have made this event possible, including many student assistance from the center for latin america and latino studies as well as several Staff Members here at the Washington College of law including our Public Relations team, the special events team, and others. And for many of you, i know in the room work at nonprofit organizations and you know how difficult it is to get the work done without the generous support of donors who can provide the Financial Resources we need to make these events possible. I want to acknowledge with tremendous gratitude the sponsors for this event, including jones day, kirkland and ellis, baker mckenzie, the law offices. Thanks for your support. [applause] and so were going to be beginning our second day of the conference with a presentation a Keynote Presentation from one of the leading experts in the field. Were really delighted to have with us today professor karen musalo. I will briefly introduce karen. For many of us, she needs no introduction. She is the founding director at the u. C. Hastings college of law. Its fair to say that she is the leading expert on the topic of genderbased asylum and the fact that she is a lead coauthor of refugee law and policy, a leading treatise on the subject. She has authored numerous book chapters and articles and relative our project, she has in gendermajor cases asylum serving as lead attorney in several cases. She has continued to publish in the field and has received numerous awards for her pioneering work in this area. Today she is going to be speaking to us about how we can restore protections in the area of genderbased violence. Please join me in warmly welcoming professor karen musula. [applause] prof. Musalo i am short, so can people see me over the screen since i dont have a box to stand on . Ok, and everybody can hear me. So first of all, thank you for that very generous introduction. Second, i want to thank the center of Latin America Latino studies and American College of law, the Planning Committee, if i have left anybody out, i apologize. Really an honor to be here and , speak to you. From the panels yesterday, we touched on some of the root causes for migration and we talked about genderbased violence, violence against women girls. Gangs. And so what i hope to do is talk about the law thats been eviscerated by this administration to, the law to provide protection and the title i was asked to title it restoring protection, and i will talk about that, but i think its important to give a little bit of the context of how this law developed and show the incredible sort of resistance to protecting women from genderbased violence so that you understand how we got to where we are now and now we might get to a better place. So forgive me for giving some of the history before i go into really the hopeful part of how i think we can restore protection. First of all, the conceptual barriers in this area going back to the beginning of the refugee intervention and protocol and state parties just didnt see survivors of genderbased violence as fitting. We know the refugee definition someone will find that your persecution on account of five grounds race, racial, nationalality, opinion or membership in a particular social group. So harms inflicted on women werent seen as being persecution, which is required for refugee protection. Gender, you have to show that the persecution is on account of one of the five grounds. Gender isnt one of the five grounds. That was another barrier. The concept of governments being the persecutors and often its private actors who are the prep perpetrators of violence. These were seen as conceptual barriers. When that Commission Free refugees began extending protection, it put out a series of directives in 1985 and im oversimplifying grossly, but basically, what you and chr canceled state parties to do was to see that a harm would be persecution it was a violation of human rights. Tracked in the concept these were cultural norms or religious dictates, they were violation of human rights and persecution. And the particular social group ground of the definition could include groups defined by gender and the persecution did not need to be by the state, it can be by a nonstate actor when the state would not protect. So there were advances and retreats over the years in the u. S. , and im going to focus more on the u. S. So in 1996, the board of immigration appeals issued the first precedent gender decision in the u. S. In a case involving grantingnital cutting, asylum, reversing an immigration judge and granting asylum from persecution of the fear of female genital cutting. This photo is a woman in detention. When she was out of detention and have been granted asylum. I love to show that photo because i think it really illustrates the dehumanization of people behind bars and just, and i just leave you with that thought. So even though there was this groundbreaking decision in 1996, there was a much more contentious route to recognition for Domestic Violence survivors. We had female genital cutting. Many of us thought that would open the door to all range of gender persecution, but it wasnt such an easy route. In 1999, the board of immigration appeals in matter of r. A. Reversed to a woman fleeing brutal Domestic Violence. This was during the clinton administration, and jeanette reno and the Justice Department did two good things before the end of that administration. Janet reno certified r. A. To and herand vacated it, Justice Department issued proposed regulations that would have really contemplated protecting survivors of Domestic Violence and other gender persecution. Those regulations were proposed in 2000. To this day they have never been finalized. Throughout the whole obama administration, we were like get those regulations and finalize them. It never happened. You see the depth of contention around this issue. Miss r. A. Herself was granted asylum by an immigration judge. It was as a level that wasnt binding precedent. It wasnt until the matter of arcg in 2014 that we actually got a binding decision saying that Domestic Violence could be the basis for an asylum claim. So think about that. All the way from 1999 to 2014 to get a decision saying that Domestic Violence could be a basis. But as well see, that was not to be long lived because of the Trump Administration. What did arcg do . The first decision recognizing Domestic Violence, it had a narrow Legal Holding. It just recognized remember i talked about the particular social Group Definition and how that could be used in cases involving gender persecution. So it had this nature roe holding say this social Group Defined by married women in guatemala unable to leave was a valid social group. Subsequent, even though it was a narrow holding, advocates really toe in and used arcg successfully advocate for other cases. Not just married women, but unmarried women, girls most interest forced into sexual relationships with gang members, child abuse survivors. Arcg, not revolutionary, but advocates really expanded to use it. So what happened . Sessions during his time as attorney general certified a case called a. B. To himself and used a. B. To reverse arcg and in reversing arcg, he reversed the grant of asylum to a. B. What did a. B. Do . This little i hate to show you a photo like this so early reason irning, but the had this is because when the attorney general did this i was actually contacted by reporter for the washington post, and im very proud of the fact is back to the dark ages is a quote from the reporter. I said, this refusal to recognize gender violence or Domestic Violence is a violation of womens rights and a basis for selling is yanking us back to the dark ages of how we conceptualize womens rights. But it is true. The point i was making and i think those of you in this room who know the tortured history winning recognition that womens rights is human rights, this was pulling us back. Ok. This is just a photo of miss a. B. Who has chosen to maintain her anonymity. Just to give you a sense of the person herself. And she did, if we had time, i would have shown you, but she a short videoas about her and her case talking about the persecution. So her case had very strong facts. This is not a case where the attorney general was looking for a week case, so she was married to her abuser, had three children with him. The abusers brother was a member of the salvadoran police. Extreme physical violence over the entire length of the relationship. The police were largely unresponsive. When i say largely unresponsive to the point of one time they issued her a order, her husband beating her, threatening her with guns and knives, no please give her a protective order and say, why dont you serve this on your husband . I think anyone who thinks of an enraged husband and say both she went to the police as her protective order is just absurd. She moved away and the abuser tracked her down and even after the divorce, he continued he actually raped her after the divorce. He told her nothing but death would set her free from him. Facts, what did sessions do in the decision of matter of a. B. . I wanted to distinguish here between what sessions attempted to do and what he actually could do legally because hes not operating in a vacuum. Theres a body of precedent. So what he tried to do was to foreclose all claims based on Domestic Violence, other gender violence, and fear of gang claims. He has this broad language, generally, you know, claims by persons pertaining to Domestic Violence or Gang Violence will not qualify for asylum. Hes trying to send this message, dont grant these claims. But the actual Legal Holding is much narrower and theres a lot of what lawyers call dicta. Statements about what the attorney general thinks. So he rejects the social group formulation that unmarried women, you know, unable to leave that actually had been a formulation developed by the department of Homeland Security itself and as i said approved in arcg. But he said that wasnt didnt meet the standard for Legal Standard for a particular social group. Then remember i told you that persecution has to be on account of . And, no, with Domestic Violence we say the violence is on account of this person being a woman in this relationship. Thats why the man abuses her. And thats what Domestic Violence experts will say. But what what sessions said is, this is just personal. It is not about gender. To try to separate out and say Domestic Violence is not about gender, this is what i mean about the ludicrousness of this. So what are the Actual Holdings of a. B. In addition to what i just told you questioning the social group and nexus. I said when it is a nonstate actor, the individual has to show the government is unable or unwilling to protect. So persecution is either by the government or by private actors that the government is unable or unwilling. He tried russians tried to raise the standard for what it takes to show unable or unwilling. He also suggested without any evidence that when the persecutor is an individual and not the government, it should be easier for the person to internally relocate and escape the persecutor. Which again is a requirement for asylum. 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. . This is where the restoring protection and whats happening, what are the strategies part begins. So im going to go over these four areas. Challenges of the a. B. Decision in the context of expedited removal. We talked about expedited removal yesterday. Litigation of ms. A. B. s individual case. Nationwide trends and digsecision making and strategies. Expedited removal. After matter of a. B. , or matter of a. B. And guidance that usic issued after a. B. Strongly implied that individuals with fear of gang cases couldnt pass that screening standard that someone must pass if theyre in expedited removal. If youre in expedited removal and you dont meet 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 just anybody who appeared with a d. V. Claim or gender violence claim or fear of gangs to say well, after a. B. , these claims dont qualify. So there was a challenge to that, grace v whitaker, where the district a District Court judge in the district of colombia issued a conjunction. They argued that the attorney general committed many legal errors in his a. B. Decision and the judge agreed. And he issued an injunction against the application of a. B. In this way, incredible fear. That was a huge step because it prevented the government from just screening these people out and not even permitting them to apply for asylum. 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, these a. B. And cannot be used as a justification to screen people out in the credible fear process. Litigation in her own case. So as you know, when an individual is denied asylum, 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 a. B. , it was sent back to the Immigration Court where we were permitted to put in more evidence. We put in about 1000 more pages of evidence about gender violence in el salvador, inability of government to protect, and etc. , etc. But the immigration judge denied it again. I should tell you, judge couch is one of the judges who has about a 95 asylum denial rate. Which is not normal for those of you who dont practice immigration law, not normal. And he was also just recently appointed to be a judge. He was elevated, promoted to the board of immigration appeals. But point im making is it was remanded back to the same judge who denied it initially and he denied it again. So we appealed to the board of immigration of appeals. We submitted our briefing just last month. And were waiting for the board of immigration appeals to decide. The board of immigration appeals theoretically could find for her. Not likely. But if the board of immigration appeals denies, then we get up to the 4th Circuit Court of appeals. So we are in a federal court where if we prevail prevail, we would hope to get reversed a lot of the legal reasoning in matter of a. B. And i should say i spoke about grace v. Whitaker, but that only applies to credible fear. So that doesnt restrain judges who want to deny because of the merits a. B. Case. In the face of this decision in matter of a. B. That tries to fore close the claims, what is happening in reality to Decision Making . The center for gender and refugee studies we assist attorneys and attorneys tell us about the outcomes in their cases. Its not a representative sample. Its not comprehensive. Its that sample of attorneys who ask for help from us, and so also we wouldnt have any prose pro se cases. People cant or dont know about us or dont seek our system. This is what we have seen. Weve seen 50 unpublished cases for fear ofd. V. Gangs where there were 37 denials and 13 remands back to the immigration judge, and generally the bai cites the matter of a. B. And says after superficial analysis, you know, whatever. Not positive. Doesnt grant. In Immigration Court weve seen something different. Weve seen 170 asylum or withholding grants. In d. V. Or partner abuse, child abuse cases. Although theres many denials also. I dont want to paint an overly rosy picture. Weve seen at least 145 denials. But one Interesting Development and this will be more for the people sort of in the weeds on legal issues and legal theories here. After the attorney general struck down the social group and said unmarri