‘There should be equality in opinions’: Political Opinion in Intimate Partner Violence Claims

There is longstanding acceptance that opposition to discrimination against women and/or non-conformity with prevailing gender norms may constitute a political opinion in refugee law. However, courts have not consistently taken an expansive view of political opinion in gender cases. In particular, notwithstanding the global prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV), there is little jurisprudential and, crucially, academic clarity in relation to the political implications of non-conformity with social mores in the context of IPV. Despite this inhospitable environment, lawyers continue to argue this ground in IPV claims, particularly at jurisprudential crisis points, as occurred recently in the aftermath of a 2018 decision in the United States, overruling previous precedent granting refugee status based on membership in a particular social group. This article provides an overarching examination of the academic discussion on the desirability and practicability of applying the political opinion ground and the case law considering this ground to date. Using the jurisprudence of appeal tribunals in five common law jurisdictions, the article reveals commonalities in both successful and unsuccessful claims in this context. Notably, it identifies that ‘nexus’ to an opinion is a previously underappreciated barrier to applying the political opinion ground in IPV claims. These observations provide a crucial foundation for further reasoned consideration of the political opinion ground in IPV claims which may arise given this ground’s ongoing invocation at first instance and in lower-level administrative decision making.