Genital Mutilation Victim Gets a New Chance at Asylum in the U.S.

WASHINGTON — In a surprise decision welcomed by human rights groups, the Justice Department moved Monday to expand the opportunities for asylum for women subjected to genital mutilation.

Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey, a former federal judge, threw out a decision by an arm of the Justice Department denying asylum to a 28-year-old woman from Mali who had been subjected to genital mutilation as a girl. Forms of genital mutilation -- often performed under unsanitary conditions with rudimentary instruments -- are common as coming-of-age rituals in more than two dozen countries.

The September 2007 ruling by the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals and the panel's denial in April 2008 of a request for reconsideration had drawn criticism from immigration and refugee groups and medical ethicists. The board concluded that because the woman had already been mutilated, she no longer had a legitimate fear of further persecution, which is required under U.S. law before asylum can be granted.

But that decision, which was at odds with several federal courts, was replete with "legal and factual errors," Mukasey said in Monday's six-page order.

"To begin with, the board based its analysis on a false premise: that female genital mutilation is a 'one-time' act that cannot be repeated on the same women," he wrote. "As several courts have recognized, female genital mutilation is indeed capable of repletion."

He cited a case where an asylum applicant's vaginal opening was sewn shut five times after being opened to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth.

"The board was wrong to focus on whether the future harm to life or freedom that [the applicant] feared would take the 'identical' form," he added.

The Malian woman had expressed concern that if she were deported she would be forced into marriage, and that any daughters she might have would also face mutilation.

Mukasey's decision to intervene came as the woman's case was being appealed to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia. His order -- that the immigration panel reconsider its position -- does not guarantee the woman permanent residency in the U.S., but legal observers said they doubted the agency would oppose the move.

"I think the response now is one of overwhelming relief and jubilation . . . and a feeling of hope that this will set a precedent for future cases," said Jen Smyers, a policy analyst with the immigration and refugee program at Church World Service, a New York-based humanitarian cooperative of churches.

Kevin Johnson, an immigration specialist and dean of the UC Davis School of Law, said the action was something of a surprise.

"This administration has been pretty tough on women who claim persecution," he said. "It is a positive step in the right direction.

"It is not a particularly human gesture to turn your back on people who have been previously persecuted. It is not a particularly generous way of looking at our asylum laws."

Since 1996, the U.S. government has recognized female genital mutilation as a form of persecution that could entitle a woman to asylum in at least some cases.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey intervenes in the case of a 28-year-old woman from Mali.

By Richard B. Schmitt
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 23, 2008

American Psychological Association Members Pass Historic Ban on Psychologist Participation in U.S. Detention Facilities

Today, the membership of the American Psychological Association (APA) passed a referendum banning participation of APA member psychologists in U.S. detention facilities, such as Guantanamo or the CIA's secret "black sites" operating outside of or in violation of international law or the Constitution. The Coalition for an Ethical Psychology congratulates our colleagues, and in particular, we congratulate the referendum authors – Dan Aalbers, Brad Olson, and Ruth Fallenbaum – as well as the activists withholding dues and otherwise protesting professional collusion with unethical behavior.

Dan Aalbers, one of the referendum’s authors, stated: "This is a decisive victory for the membership of the APA and for human rights advocates everywhere. This new policy will ensure that psychologists work for the abused and not the abusers at places like Guantanamo Bay and the CIA black sites. We expect that the APA's leadership will immediately take action to ensure that psychologists are removed from the chain of command at places where human rights are violated or said not to apply."

In recent years revelations from the press, Congress, and Defense Department documents revealed that psychologists have played a central role in Bush administration detainee abuse. These reports conclusively demonstrate that psychologists designed, implemented, disseminated, and standardized detention and interrogation practices that frequently amounted to torture.

The passage of this referendum constitutes a decisive repudiation of the APA leadership's long-standing policy encouraging psychologist participation in interrogations and other activities in military and CIA detention facilities that have repeatedly been found to violate international law and the Constitution. In 2005, the APA's orchestrated Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security [PENS] declared that psychologists' participation in interrogations in these sites helped keep interrogations there "safe, legal, an ethical." Although APA followed this report with resolutions ostensibly condemning participation in torture, the resolutions continued to permit psychologists to serve in sites where human rights are routinely violated. The APA membership has now rejected APA policy in favor of one refusing psychologist participation in the running of detention facilities operating against the law and professional ethics.

"For years APA leadership has insisted that our professions' contributions to the Bush administration detentions made things better. It turns out that the APA membership wasn’t convinced" said Stephen Soldz, a psychologist on the faculty of the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis and a founder of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology.

Passage of the referendum culminates years of struggle by numerous APA members to change policies that conflict with the best traditions of psychology as a profession. The referendum is a clear statement that APA members take seriously the profession's highest ethical aspiration: "Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm." Members are not willing to continue colluding with the Bush administration's systematic policies of detainee abuse that often amount to torture.

Referendum proponents collected over 1,000 signatures, forcing APA to submit the policy change to a mail ballot of the entire membership. The ballots went out on August 1 and votes received as of Monday, September 15th were counted. The referendum passed with 8,792 [58.8% ] YES votes to 6,157 votes against. The turnout was the highest ever in APA history.

"With this vote APA members have taken a major step toward restoring unimpeachable ethical standards by prohibiting its members from participating at sites that violate human rights and international law. But until APA communicates this new policy to the White House, the Department of Defense and the CIA, the abuses might continue. We must assure that the policy is implemented quickly" said Steven Reisner, a New York psychologist who is running for APA President.

Passage of the referendum is an important first step in righting APA policies that have cast shame upon the profession. The Coalition for an Ethical Psychology calls upon APA to take additional steps to turn the organization around.

Although the referendum pulls psychologists out of detention sites where human rights are being violated, we call upon APA to take a further step and put APA policy in line with that of the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association and ban psychologists from any direct role in the interrogation of specific individuals in any national security setting.

We call upon the APA to initiate and fund an independent panel to investigate and create a public record regarding the participation of U.S. psychologists in torture and other detainee abuse. The panel should also investigate organizational, policy, and ethical policies contributing to this abuse and make recommendations for change.

The APA should proceed expeditiously to modify its ethics code to remove clauses allowing ethical violations when psychological ethics are in conflict with "law, regulations, or other governing legal authority."

The APA should act quickly on ethics complaints against psychologists reported to have contributed to U.S. torture and detention abuses.

Finally, the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology calls upon APA members to follow up this victory by electing a President, Steven Reisner, who is steadfastly committed to ending psychologist collusion with detainee abuse.

The Coalition for an Ethical Psychology includes Jean Maria Arrigo, Brad Olson, Steven Reisner, Stephen Soldz, and Bryant Welch

U.S. court rejects Salvadoran's asylum appeal

September 09, 2008|By Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

A federal appeals court denied asylum Monday to a Bay Area man who said he had fled El Salvador after gang members beat him, killed his brother and threatened his family.

Jose Santos-Lemus said that the assaults and threats amounted to persecution aimed at his family and against young Salvadoran men who opposed gang violence, and that police in his native country were unable or unwilling to protect him.

But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a deportation order against Santos-Lemus, saying he appeared to have been "victimized for economic and personal reasons" and not because of his opinions or membership in a family or group.

Santos-Lemus said he had been targeted by members of Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS-13, a gang that was started in Southern California and has ties to El Salvador. Law enforcement authorities say it engages in drug dealing, weapons trafficking and extortion. San Francisco police say a man charged with murdering a father and two sons by shooting into their car on June 22 was an MS-13 member, although the man's lawyer denies it.

Santos-Lemus said gang members shot and killed his oldest brother in 2001, beat and robbed two more brothers, and sent many anonymous notes threatening his family over a four-year period, all because of perceived insults. He said he was beaten and stabbed by a group of MS-13 members in 2003 and left El Salvador after receiving a death threat in May 2004.

Santos-Lemus said he and his family had been too fearful to report any of the crimes to Salvadoran police, who they believed were involved with the gang. Although persecution by a foreign government is the most common reason for U.S. courts granting asylum, some applicants have won their cases by arguing that police tolerated criminal attacks motivated by the victim's views or social status.

His lawyer said Santos-Lemus now lives in a Bay Area community, which he did not specify. Santos-Lemus said two of his brothers have also come to the United States, but his mother is still in their hometown of Chalatenango, El Salvador, and two sisters and a brother live elsewhere in the Central American nation.

Santos-Lemus conceded that his relatives who still live in El Salvador have not been attacked by gang members. That undercut his assertion that he had been persecuted because of his family, the appeals court said. The court also turned back his argument that he had been singled out as an opponent of gang violence.

"The harassment appears to have been part of general criminality and civil unrest," Judge J. Clifford Wallace said in the 3-0 ruling. "There is no evidence that they targeted him because they perceived him to be a member of any kind of anti-gang group."