The two women met for the first time last week at a sleek Georgetown hotel, where they were speakers at a glittering charity dinner. They shook hands and hugged across a vast gulf of culture, geography and faith: one a devout Muslim from West Africa with her hair carefully hidden under a tight scarf, the other a gregarious South Asian in a stylish sari and costume earrings.

The court decision reflects a critical course-correction from earlier decisions by both the judge and the nation’s highest immigration court that held asylum claims by women who have suffered FGM to a higher legal standard than claims by other asylum applicants.

For anyone who would better understand the journeys of Tahirih’s clients, of women like them, and of women wrestling with the cultural tradition of FGM, “Mrs. Goundo’s Daughter” is not a film to be missed.

As a mother, I know that there isn’t anything you wouldn’t do to protect and feed your child. Parents all over the world are united in their primordial instincts to protect their children. It is this same impulse to safeguard one’s family that motivates our clients to flee horrific forms of violence and come to us seeking help.

This powerful article highlights the plight of several Tahirih clients who have suffered female genital mutilation and whose lives continue to be affected by the violence they have suffered.

The BIA’s decision in the Matter of A-T reveals a poor understanding of FGM and its consequences, as well as a flawed interpretation of refugee law, and poses a direct threat to the ability of Tahirih’s clients and others who have suffered FGM to receive protection in the United States.

The highest immigration appellate court, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), issued two precedent-setting decisions that advocates fear will limit the ability of a woman to receive refugee status because of female genital cutting.