Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are th ways to claim asylum under domestic law and case laws ?
Executive summary
U.S. asylum is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and implementing regulations: an applicant must show past persecution or a well‑founded fear of future persecution “on account of” race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group (8 U.S.C. §1158 and implementing rules) [1] [2]. Domestic‑violence and gender‑based claims have been litigated aggressively: some administrative decisions and agency guidance have recognized such claims, but higher‑level rulings and policy shifts (notably Matter of A‑R‑C‑G‑ being overruled and Matter of A‑B‑III language) have created legal uncertainty and more denials [3] [4] [5].
1. The statutory framework journalists call the backbone
The Refugee Act of 1980 incorporated the refugee definition into U.S. domestic law; asylum eligibility flows from that definition and INA §208 and related statutes such as 8 U.S.C. §1158 — interpreted by DHS’s Asylum Office and DOJ’s immigration courts — meaning an applicant must link persecution to one of five protected grounds and not be barred by statutory disqualifiers [1] [2].
2. Basic legal elements an applicant must prove
Asylum requires: (a) past persecution or a credible, well‑founded fear of future persecution; and (b) that the persecution is “on account of” a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group). If an applicant cannot meet the asylum standard, alternative protections exist (withholding of removal under INA §241(b)[6] or protection under the Convention Against Torture), which have different burdens and limits [1] [7].
3. “Particular social group” — the key opening for domestic/gender claims
Claims based on domestic violence or gender usually proceed under “membership in a particular social group.” This category has been the most adaptable in practice, and advocates have long argued it can cover women unable to leave abusive relationships or persons targeted as LGBT, but the law’s contours—visibility, particularity, and social distinction—have been litigated extensively [4] [5].
4. Case law flashpoints: A‑R‑C‑G‑, A‑B‑III, and L‑R‑—what changed
Matter of A‑R‑C‑G‑ (BIA 2014) had opened one path by recognizing certain domestic‑violence‑based groups; that decision was later undermined by Attorney General and BIA actions that narrowed refuge for such claims. Attorney General opinions and guidance during the Sessions era instructed denial “generally” for domestic‑violence claims, producing a higher denial rate and litigation in the courts of appeal [3] [5]. Subsequent DHS positions (e.g., Matter of L‑R‑) and agency training show some officials still recognize domestic violence as potentially qualifying in individual cases, but sources emphasize there is no single binding national precedent that guarantees success [4] [3].
5. Practical hurdles highlighted by practitioners and scholars
Even where legal theory exists, practitioners warn that defining a “particular social group” narrowly enough to satisfy adjudicators is often the biggest hurdle; applicants must document the specific barriers—social, legal, and policing failures—that prevent safe relocation within their country and show persecution is because of group membership, not private crime or generalized violence [8] [4] [9].
6. Regulatory and procedural constraints that matter in practice
Adjudicatory rules (e.g., 8 C.F.R. §1208.13 and EOIR policies) allow immigration judges and asylum officers to pretermit or deny legally deficient claims and to treat inadmissibility or criminal bars seriously; detained applicants and those with incomplete evidence face speedier timelines and tougher practical odds [10] [11] [1].
7. Where advocates and courts disagree — competing perspectives
Advocates and refugee law scholars argue that gender‑based persecution is consistent with asylum’s aims and point to training and selective agency decisions recognizing domestic violence claims [4] [9]. Opposing agency opinions and some higher‑level rulings have emphasized limits to asylum for nonstate actors’ violence, producing the competing view that many domestic‑violence claims are not eligible absent strong evidence linking the harm to a protected ground [3] [5].
8. What this means for someone preparing a claim
Build an individualized record: document incidents, show why local police/state cannot/will not protect you, link the harm to a protected ground (particularly a carefully framed particular social group), and be prepared to pursue alternative protection forms (withholding, CAT) if asylum is barred. Because the law is unsettled, legal counsel experienced in gender and domestic‑violence asylum litigation is crucial; the academic and practice literature stresses that outcomes hinge on careful legal framing and evolving agency posture [8] [7] [4].
Limitations: available sources in this packet summarize law, major administrative decisions, practice guidance, and commentary but do not provide a comprehensive, up‑to‑date list of every controlling appellate decision or the very latest agency memoranda beyond those cited (not found in current reporting).