Abay v. Ashcroft

Yayeshwork Abay and her daughter Burhan Amare (defendant) entered the United States from Ethiopia, and Attorney General John Ashcroft (plaintiff) initiated deportation proceedings before an immigration judge (IJ). During the deportation proceedings, Abay testified that she experienced female circumcision, also known as female genital mutilation (FGM), at age nine. Abay testified that she and her husband managed to prevent her daughters from experiencing FGM, but her mother wanted Abay’s daughters to be circumcised before their marriages. Abay testified that she brought Amare, her youngest daughter, to the United States to prevent Amare’s circumcision. At the deportation proceedings, Amare testified through a sign-language interpreter that she knew about FGM and that she did not want to be subjected to FGM. Amare also testified that she feared returning to Ethiopia because she feared her relatives or future in-laws would force her to be circumcised. At the deportation proceedings, Abay and Amare also introduced documentary evidence from the United States State Department, which indicated that FGM was nearly universal in Ethiopia. The IJ denied Abay and Amare’s applications for asylum, and Abay and Amare appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA affirmed the IJ decision, causing Abay and Amare to appeal to the Sixth Circuit. Amare argued she was eligible for asylum on the basis of her own fear of FGM, and Abay argued she was eligible because she feared her daughter would face FGM. Abay argued the BIA previously granted asylum on the basis of physical harm done to a family member. The attorney general opposed Abay’s applications for asylum, arguing no authority existed to grant Abay asylum based on her fear that Amare would undergo FGM.