Abstract This study examines how national adjudicators interpret and apply the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees guidance in asylum claims related to female genital mutilation. Drawing on a structured consistency analysis of 30 case rulings across diverse jurisdictions, primarily from the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, and Ireland, it identifies three main sources of divergence: (1) implementation failures despite clear guidance, (2) restrictive interpretations enabled by under-specified standards, and (3) substantive ambiguities in areas not fully addressed by current guidance. Most inconsistencies stem from misapplications at the lower-court level, particularly in risk assessments, State protection analysis, and internal relocation evaluations, often corrected on appeal. Across several rulings, courts highlighted the need for stronger reaffirmation of existing principles, including the enduring harm caused by female genital mutilation or the State’s exclusive responsibility for protection. Only a limited number of cases revealed genuine doctrinal uncertainty, mainly in relation to parental asylum claims involving citizen children. These findings underscore not only the enforcement challenges specific to female genital mutilation-related claims but also broader implications for the adjudication of gender-based persecution within refugee law.
Arzu Güler (Tue,) studied this question.