Unusual Asylum Cases Spark Debate

Sept. 25 -- When it comes to political asylum in the United States, it’s not just a would-be refugee’s political status that matters anymore.

Thanks to recent rulings by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, the perception of political asylum and ideas about who should be considered for sanctuary are growing much broader.

The classic example used to be the defector from a communist bloc nation — usually a dissident leader or critic fleeing a repressive regime.

Recently however, the INS has granted asylum to whole new categories of people, extending the definition of who is considered a political refugee to abused women, gays, and maybe soon, to people with disabilities.

Social Threats

Last July, an alleged victim of domestic abuse won asylum when her lawyers argued her husband threatened her life because of her political beliefs. According to her attorneys, “Jane Doe,” an East African woman who married into a tribe that believes wives should be servants to their husbands, was a member of group of women who did not share the tribe’s beliefs and would not be protected from abusive spouses by the government. Most of Jane Doe’s conflict, her lawyers stressed, was based on her beliefs and her criticism of her husband’s tribe.

In May, a gay Colombian couple won asylum when they argued their lives would be endangered in their native country because of their sexuality. Using a similar argument, a Mexican male crossdresser also won asylum in a California court.

And in Chicago, a Pakistani mother is seeking sanctuary for her and her son based on the boy’s disability — autism. Umair Choudry’s autism is so severe he cannot talk and has to wear a helmet and mittens for protection against self-mutilation. His mother, Farah Choudhry, says autism is considered a curse by Allah in Pakistan. Because the disease is misunderstood and there are little support services, Choudry says her son would be persecuted and tortured in Pakistan.