Centering Women in U.S. Immigration Reform
Guest blogger: Gabriella Conversano, law student, University of San Francisco
For countless women, America’s immigration framework is less a path to safety than a complicated web of legal and social traps. From fleeing gender-based persecution abroad to navigating conditional permanent residency, dependent visas, and possible detention, they face barriers at every turn. Built on outdated assumptions about gender and family, the current immigration system fails to reflect the realities of women’s lives, including the brutality many seek to escape. Any meaningful reform must begin by centering women’s experiences.
A. Gendered Exclusion from Asylum
Survivors escaping life-threatening conditions in their home countries confront immense legal obstacles when seeking refuge in the United States. Many apply under §101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) claiming a “well-founded fear of persecution on account of” membership in a particular social group. Yet immigration judges retain broad discretion in defining such groups—often denying relief based on narrow, patriarchal interpretations.
In Mockeviciene v. U.S. Attorney General (2007), the applicant endured horrific abuse by her husband, his friends, and local police after identifying as lesbian. The court nonetheless denied asylum reasoning that her recent marriage to a man undermined her stated sexual identity. This decision illustrates how heteronormative bias can distort credibility assessments and deny safety to those most in need.
A glimmer of progress emerged in Matter of A-R-C-G- (2014), when the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) recognized “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” as a cognizable social group. The opinion acknowledged Guatemala’s entrenched machismo culture and carved out a narrow path to relief for survivors of domestic violence. That progress, however, was short-lived. In 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions overruled that decision in Matter of A-B-, declaring domestic abuse a “private matter” insufficient for purposes of asylum. And this approach has continued in the second Trump administration.
These rulings expose how inconsistent, male-dominated interpretations of the law perpetuate cycles of harm that deprive women of the dignity and shelter they deserve. Eligibility for asylum should never hinge on the subjective moral compasses of decisionmakers who lack crucial perspective. Gender-based violence is a public concern that demands a mindful and compassionate response.
B. Conditional Residency and Dependent Visas
Even those who migrate lawfully face structural vulnerability. Conditional permanent residency and dependent visas—such as H-4, L-2, F-2, and M-2—tether a woman’s legal status entirely to her spouse. Under INA §216, conditional residents must jointly file a petition with their U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse within the 90-day period preceding their second anniversary to remove the conditions of their residency. If a dependent’s marriage dissolves, their visa can disappear overnight.
Most H-4 visa holders are not authorized for employment unless their spouse has reached an advanced stage in the green card process, while F-2 and M-2 dependents are barred from employment altogether. This dependence often traps women in financially precarious, socially isolated situations that empower abusive spouses to exploit immigration status by threatening deportation or withdrawal of sponsorship to deter victims from leaving or seeking help. Language barriers, fear of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and limited access to legal or social services compound their isolation. Many undocumented women remain silent as a result, knowing that a call for help could lead to detention or removal. These circumstances display the paradox of a system that demands assimilation while punishing autonomy.
C. Detention and Deportation
For those who end up in detention, the cruelty only deepens. Reports reveal that detention centers have denied women access to basic reproductive and medical care, including menstrual products and prenatal services. Other violations include inadequate COVID-19 precautions and delays in essential forms of treatment. Even more disturbing, a 2020 lawsuit against the Irwin County Detention Center (ICDC) uncovered a pattern of non-consensual hysterectomies performed on women in ICE custody. Many of these women did not comprehend the procedures they underwent due to deliberate misinformation, and some who spoke out faced retaliation through lifted deportation holds. These acts chillingly echo the nation’s dark history of eugenic sterilization practices targeting marginalized groups. Furthermore, sexual abuse of migrants in detention facilities is a persistent problem that the U.S. government has yet to effectively address.
D. Paths to Reform
To mitigate these harms, immigration reform must prioritize women’s experiences rather than treat them as peripheral. Congress should codify gender-based persecution as an explicit asylum ground to insulate survivors from shifting political winds and judicial discretion. The United States should also end the detention of pregnant women, expand humane alternatives to detention for all, and strengthen oversight to prevent abuses of power in custody.
Revising INA §216 to eliminate the joint-filing requirement would free conditional residents from coercive marriages. Granting work authorization to dependent spouses would promote economic independence and reduce vulnerability to exploitation. Finally, expanding access to VAWA and U visas—with trauma-informed evidentiary standards and guaranteed legal representation—would help ensure more equitable protection. Protecting women is not a niche issue; it is a measure of America’s willingness to enact immigration laws that truly embody refuge, justice, and humanity.
