Yesterday's proposed regs are just so full of awful ideas that I've had a lot of trouble reading more than a few pages at a time; there are at least 5 other terrible changes to the law just on this page. But a presumption of denial for gender-based #asylum is truly a new low.
I'm sure if you asked they'd tell you that they were trying to keep applicants from getting around the Sessions-era decision (mostly) ending protections for domestic violence victims by claiming that they were actually persecuted for their gender. But this is *way* more than that
Ofc this whole list is plainly illegal on its face; the executive can't just decide to cut out entire grounds for asylum like this. But it really doesn't matter. In my experience, just putting something like this to paper emboldens adjudicators & judges to do the wrong thing
For as long as I've been practicing, asylum claims for non-cisgendered applicants have been some of the easiest (and most personally fulfilling) cases I've worked on. There's never been a serious question that it's a clear and cognizable grounds for protection. This is a sad day.
AFAIK the comment period hasn't opened for these new rules yet, but I'll certainly be sure to let you know when it has.
