Beyond Country Conditions: A Relational Framework for Individualized Risk Assessment in Female Genital Mutilation Asylum Claims

Authors

  • Prof. Shaul M. Gabbay Global Research Institute, Posner Center for International Development, Denver, Colorado, USA. Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63539/isrn.2026026

Keywords:

Female Genital Mutilation, Asylum, Refugee Law, Individualized Risk, Social Networks, Informal Authority, Gender-Based Persecution

Abstract

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a serious human rights violation, and the threat of it can support a claim for asylum. But it is often hard to tell whether one particular woman or girl actually faces that risk. Country reports can show how common FGM is, how it varies by region, whether it is illegal, whether the law is enforced, and whether attitudes are shifting. What they usually cannot show is why one woman faces real pressure to be cut while another woman from the same country, region, or even the same extended family does not. Two applicants can share a passport, a hometown, and a set of statistics, and still face entirely different futures. This paper tries to close that gap. Country conditions only become meaningful for a specific person, however, once we look at the relationships around her: her family's authority structure, who she depends on, her marriage prospects, community expectations, religious and traditional pressure, who might protect her, and whether the state can actually reach her. The paper works through several factors that push individual risk up or down: how concentrated authority is, how dependent she is on people who support cutting, how tightly a community can monitor and enforce compliance, whether real sanctions exist, whether she has other networks to fall back on, whether any protective relationships have real teeth, and whether formal institutions can actually help her. None of this is meant to be tallied like a checklist. These factors interact, and a single strong ally can matter more than several weak threats combined. The paper turns them into a practical matrix for individual case assessment. Although it is built around FGM, the same logic applies to other harms carried out through informal social power, including forced marriage, honor-based violence, apostasy, and domestic violence. A short example applies the matrix to a forced-marriage claim to show how it carries over.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. United Nations Children's Fund, Female Genital Mutilation: A Global Concern, UNICEF, New York, 2024.

2. World Health Organization, Female Genital Mutilation, WHO, Geneva, 2025.

3. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Female Genital Mutilation, UNHCR, Geneva, 2009.

4. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, UNHCR, Geneva, reissued 2019.

5. Güler, A., “Assessing UNHCR Guidance on FGM-Related Asylum Claims: Implementation Gaps, Reaffirmation Needs, or Substantive Ambiguities?”, Refugee Survey Quarterly, 45(1), 114-138, 2026.

6. Granovetter, M.S., “The Strength of Weak Ties”, American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380, 1973.

7. Lin, N., Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001.

8. Gabbay, S.M. and Leenders, R.T.A.J. (Eds.), Corporate Social Capital and Liability, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1999.

9. Sood, S. and Ramaiya, A., “Combining Theory and Research to Validate a Social Norms Framework Addressing Female Genital Mutilation”, Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 747823, 2022.

10. Shell-Duncan, B., Moreau, A., Smith, S. and Shakya, H., “Women's Business? A Social Network Study of the Influence of Men on Decision-Making Regarding Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in Senegal”, Global Public Health, 16(6), 856-869, 2021.

11. Hayford, S.R., Garver, S., Soura, A.B., Cheong, Y.F., Grose, R.G. and Yount, K.M., “Community Influences on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A Comparison of Four Francophone West African Countries”, Studies in Family Planning, 51(1), 3-32, 2020.

12. Gutiérrez-García, A.I., Solano-Ruiz, C., Perpiñá-Galváñ, J., Siles-González, J. and Jimenez-Ruiz, I., “Female Genital Mutilation as a Social Norm: Examining the Beliefs and Attitudes of Women in This Diaspora”, Qualitative Health Research, 32(7), 1153-1166, 2022.

13. Agboli, A., Richard, F., Botbol-Baum, M., Brackelaire, J.L., D'Aguanno, A., Diallo, K., Mikolajczak, M., Ricadat, E. and Aujoulat, I., “Changing Attitudes towards Female Genital Mutilation: From Conflicts of Loyalty to Reconciliation with Self and the Community: The Role of Emotion Regulation”, PLoS ONE, 17(6), e0270088, 2022.

14. Doucet, M.H., Delamou, A., Manet, H. and Groleau, D., “Beyond the Sociocultural Rhetoric: Female Genital Mutilation, Cultural Values and the Symbolic Capital (Honor) of Women and Their Family in Conakry, Guinea: A Focused Ethnography among 'Positive Deviants'”, Sexuality and Culture, 26(5), 1858-1884, 2022.

15. Berg, R.C. and Denison, E., “Does Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) Affect Women's Sexual Functioning? A Systematic Review of the Sexual Consequences of FGM/C”, Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 9(1), 41-56, 2012.

16. World Health Organization, Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation: An Interagency Statement, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2008.

17. Shell-Duncan, B., “From Health to Human Rights: Female Genital Cutting and the Politics of Intervention”, American Anthropologist, 110(2), 225-236, 2008.

18. Gruenbaum, E., The Female Circumcision Controversy: An Anthropological Perspective, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 2001.

19. Shell-Duncan, B. and Hernlund, Y. (Eds.), Female “Circumcision” in Africa: Culture, Controversy, and Change, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, 2000.

20. Boddy, J., Civilizing Women: British Crusades in Colonial Sudan, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2007.

21. Van Bavel, H., “Applying Anthropology to Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting”, American Anthropologist, 2026.

22. Mackie, G., “Ending Footbinding and Infibulation: A Convention Account”, American Sociological Review, 61(6), 999-1017, 1996.

23. Mackie, G., “Female Genital Cutting: The Beginning of the End”, in B. Shell-Duncan and Y. Hernlund (Eds.), Female “Circumcision” in Africa: Culture, Controversy, and Change, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, 253-281, 2000.

24. Mackie, G. and LeJeune, J., Social Dynamics of Abandonment of Harmful Practices: A New Look at the Theory, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2009.

25. United Nations Children's Fund, Changing a Harmful Social Convention: Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2005.

26. Goodwin-Gill, G.S. and McAdam, J., The Refugee in International Law, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021.

27. Hathaway, J.C., The Rights of Refugees under International Law, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021.

28. Foster, M., International Refugee Law and Socio-Economic Rights: Refuge from Deprivation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.

29. United Nations Children's Fund, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A Statistical Overview and Exploration of the Dynamics of Change, UNICEF, New York, 2013.

30. FB v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), Appeal No. AA/14934/2010, determination of 28 January 2016.

31. Secretary of State for the Home Department v MO, Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), Appeal No. PA/02182/2015, decision of 17 August 2016.

32. Gabbay, S.M. and Leenders, R.T.A.J. (Eds.), Social Capital of Organizations: From Social Structure to the Management of Corporate Social Capital, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 18, Emerald/JAI Press, Bingley, 2001.

33. Gabbay, S.M., “Social Capital and Social Liability in Nigeria: Honor Norms, Gender-Based Violence, and the Limits of Formal Protection”, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 16, 2026.

34. Gabbay, S.M., “Social Capital and Social Liability in the Fight Against Terrorism: The Case of Pakistan”, Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 8(3), 224-230, 2025.

Downloads

Published

18-10-2026

Issue

Section

Research Articles

How to Cite

Gabbay, S. M. (2026). Beyond Country Conditions: A Relational Framework for Individualized Risk Assessment in Female Genital Mutilation Asylum Claims. International Social Research Nexus (ISRN), 2(3), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.63539/isrn.2026026

Similar Articles

1-10 of 38

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.