The Right to Asylum – Gender as a Protected Social Group
Maria Angela Maina
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36158/97888929555164
The article has been translated automatically. Note
1
Millbank A. (2000), The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention. Parliament of Australia
2
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951, Article 1(A)(2)
3
Crawley H. (2004), Comparative Analysis of Gen- der-Related Persecution in National Asylum Legislation and Practice in Europe (EPAU/2004/05 May 2004), United Na- tions High Commissioner For Refugees
4
UN Women, Facts and figures: Ending Violence Against Women
5
Millbank A. (2000), The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention, Parliament of Australia
6
Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament
7
Matter of AB, Respondent (US Office of the Attor- ney General, 2021)
8
European Commission (Press corner), Questions and Answers about Female Genital Mutilation
9
Millbank A. (2000), The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention. Parliament of Australia
10
Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department (UK House of Lords, 2006)
11
Chan v Canada (Supreme Court of Canada, 1995).
12
Applicant (Somalia) v OFPRA (National Court of Asylum, 2020)
13
Chow E. (2020), “Not There Yet”: Women Fleeing Domestic Violence & The Refugee Convention, University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series
14
Executive Office for Immigration Review (2006), In re CA, Respondent
15
Sky News UK (2022), FGM Victim Applies for UK Asylum for Third Time As She Fears for Her Life If Found By Husband, Sky News
16
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR Global Trends 2019, UNHCR
17
Kumin J. (2001), Gender: Persecution in the Spotlight
18
Bagaric M. (2006), Refugee Law: Moving to a More Humane Approach – Ignoring the Framers’ Intentions
19
Chow E. (2020), “Not There Yet”: Women Fleeing Domestic Violence & The Refugee Convention, University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series
20
UNICEF, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Sta- tistics – UNICEF Data
