Who Is Worthy of Protection?

A surprisingly understudied topic in international relations is that of gender-based asylum even though the tactic has been adopted in an increasing number of countries in the global north and west. Those adjudicating gender-based asylum cases must investicate the specific category of gender violence committed against the asylum-seeker as well as the role of the asylum-seeker''s home state in being complicit with such violence. As Nayak argues it matters not just that but how we respond to gender violence and persecution. Feminist advocates U.S. governmental officials and asylum adjudicators have articulated different frames for different types of gender violence promoting ideas about how to categorize violence its causes and who counts as its victims. These frames in turn may be used successfully to grant asylum to persecuted migrants; however the frames are also very narrow and limited. This is because the U.S. must negotiate the tension between immigration restriction and human rights obligations to protect refugees from persecution. The effects of the asylum frames are two-fold. First they leave out or distort the stories and experiences of asylum-seekers who do not fit the frames. Second the frames reflect but also serve as an entry point to deepen strengthen and shape the U.S. position of power relative to other countries international organizations and immigrant communities. This book explores the politics of gender-based asylum through a comparative examination of asylum policy and cases regarding domestic violence female circumcision rape trafficking coercive sterilization/abortion and persecution based on sexual and gender identity.