Physical Harm as a Specific Form of Persecution

Date of Information: 10/14/2025

Check back soon; we update these materials frequently.

Overview

Physical harm is the most universally recognized manifestation of persecution in U.S. asylum law. It encompasses deliberate violence that threatens life or bodily integrity, carried out by—or with the consent or acquiescence of—the state on account of a protected ground such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

While torture is an extreme form of physical harm characterized by intent to inflict severe pain for a coercive or punitive purpose, many other forms of serious physical violence still qualify as persecution under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This article addresses that broader spectrum, while a linked companion article—What Is “Torture” Under U.S. Law? —examines the narrower standards under 8 C.F.R. § 208.18.

I. Legal Definition of Physical Persecution

The Board of Immigration Appeals defined persecution as “the infliction of suffering or harm upon those who differ in a way regarded as offensive” (Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985)).
It is an extreme concept, requiring more than mere harassment or discrimination (Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993)).

To prove persecution based on physical harm, an applicant must show:

An incident (or pattern) of harm rising to the level of persecution;
A nexus between the harm and a protected ground; and
State responsibility—either direct involvement or governmental inability or unwillingness to prevent it (Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2005)).

II. Recognized Categories of Physical Harm

This article focuses on the more direct and tangible forms of physical persecution—including assault, detention, sexual violence, and gender-based harm such as female genital mutilation.
While coercive control, emotional trauma, and psychological violence often accompany physical persecution, those subjects are addressed in separate Research Library articles on Psychological Harm as a Form of Persecution and Coercion and Psychological Control Under U.S. Asylum Law.

A. Beatings, Detention, and Abusive Confinement

Physical assault and detention under degrading conditions are classic examples:

A brief detention with minor beating may not suffice (Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336 (9th Cir. 1995)), but longer or repeated detentions involving shackling, starvation, or humiliation do (Ndom v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2004)).
Abduction and physical assault by political actors constitute persecution (In re V-T-S-, 21 I&N Dec. 792 (BIA 1997)).
Threats of execution or torture during custody elevate harm to persecution (Diallo v. U.S. Atty Gen., 596 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2010)).

B. Sexual Violence and Gender-Based Harm

Sexual assault is per se persecution, regardless of the victim’s gender or the cultural context:

Rape by a police officer was held to be persecution (Lopez-Galarza v. INS, 99 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1996)).
In Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000), sexual assaults by police against a gay teenager with a female sexual identity in Mexico were persecution “on account of membership in a particular social group.”
In re S-A- (22 I&N Dec. 1328 (BIA 2000)) found that a Moroccan woman beaten and burned by her father for adopting “Western” dress suffered persecution “on account of religion,” because the government was unwilling to intervene.

C. Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)

FGM is one of the most severe recognized forms of physical persecution:

In re Kasinga held that FGM constitutes “sexual mutilation and permanent disfigurement amounting to persecution.”
Abay v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2004), confirmed that both threatened and completed FGM satisfy the persecution standard.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2005), reaffirmed that FGM is “a horrifically brutal procedure, often performed without anesthesia,” producing “extreme pain, permanent disfigurement, and lifelong consequences,” and that it constitutes persecution “on account of membership in a particular social group” of women and girls in Somalia.

D. Threats and Attempted Killings

A credible death threat by an actor with the means to execute it constitutes persecution (Diallo, 596 F.3d at 1334).

E. Cumulative or Repeated Harm

Isolated minor assaults may collectively rise to persecution when targeted and recurring (Kumar v. Garland, 52 F.4th 957 (5th Cir. 2022)).

III. Government Involvement or Acquiescence

Persecution requires state action or tolerance.

Direct acts by officials—such as police rape or detention—satisfy this requirement (Hernandez-Montiel, 225 F.3d at 1097 n.9).
Family-based or community violence also qualifies if the state is “unable or unwilling to control” the perpetrators (In re S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328).
Mohammed v. Gonzales rejected the argument that violence by relatives is exempt: “There is no exception … for violence from family members; if the government is unable or unwilling to control persecution, it matters not who inflicts it.”

IV. Severity and Permanence

Courts distinguish persecution from lesser harms by examining duration, intensity, and irreversibility:

Insufficient harm: short detentions with limited injury (Prasad).
Sufficient harm: repeated beatings causing hospitalization (Yasinskyy v. Holder, 724 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2013)).
Extreme harm: rape, burning, or mutilation producing lasting trauma (S-A-; Mohammed).

FGM and similar acts are considered permanent and continuing persecution, not isolated past events.

V. Use of Weapons and Implements in Inflicting Physical Harm

Courts treat the use of weapons, tools, or physical implements as strong evidence of persecution, demonstrating both intent and severity.

Tarubac v. INS, 182 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 1999): kidnapping and beating under threat of death constituted persecution.
In re S-A- involved use of a heated razor to burn the victim—direct evidence of deliberate cruelty.
In re Kasinga and Mohammed v. Gonzales described cutting instruments used in FGM as hallmarks of persecution.
Ndom v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2004): shackles and forced degradation were physical instruments of persecution.

Weapon or implement use signals purposeful infliction of pain, converts ambiguous mistreatment into persecution, and provides objective corroboration of harm.

VI. More Than Mere Harassment or Discrimination

Persecution requires more than sporadic hostility or inconvenience.

In Mikhailevitch v. INS, 146 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 1998), the court held that “a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation, unaccompanied by physical punishment, infliction of harm, or significant deprivation of liberty,” do not constitute persecution.
The Georgetown Immigration Law Journal summarized: persecution “must be proven by showing more than mere harassment or intimidation … unaccompanied by physical injury or deprivation of liberty.” This aligns with Bradvica v. INS, 128 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir. 1997) and Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425 (9th Cir. 1995).

Thus, persecution is an “extreme concept” demanding physical injury or serious deprivation of freedom; verbal hostility or social animus alone falls short.

VII. No Requirement of Permanent or Serious Injury

Persecution does not require permanent scars or lasting disability.

Camara v. Att’y Gen., 580 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2009) — kidnapping and detention without lasting wounds was persecution.
Prela v. Att’y Gen., 394 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 2005) — short detention with beatings sufficed.
Voci v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 607 (3d Cir. 2005) — “asylum law does not require broken bones or scars.”

Key point: The absence of permanent injury does not diminish persecution when intent and impact are severe.

VIII. Physical Persecution Includes Non-Physical Coercion

Physical and psychological abuse often intertwine. Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 22 I&N Dec. 23 (BIA 1998) held that persecution includes psychological coercion and deprivation of basic needs.

Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 1996): economic deprivation and threats amounted to persecution.
Vladimirova v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2004): forced medical exams and intimidation sufficed.

Key point: Physical persecution can be reinforced by non-physical coercion showing state intent to dominate or punish.

IX. Coercive Interrogation and Detention as Persecution

Prolonged or violent interrogation crosses from law enforcement into persecution.

Bondarenko v. Holder, 733 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2013): beating during interrogation warranted asylum.
Besha v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2003): unsanitary detention and repeated questioning constituted persecution.

Key point: When custody involves coercive conditions or violence, it satisfies the physical-harm element even absent formal conviction.

X. Medical Treatment Not Required to Prove Severity

Failure to seek or obtain medical care does not negate persecution.

Kholyavskiy v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2008): no medical record needed when harm credibly described.
Karouni v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2005): lack of medical evidence did not undermine proof of persecution.

Key point: Credible testimony describing pain or injury suffices; treatment decisions do not lessen severity.

XI. Emotional and Psychological Trauma as Physical Persecution

Although this article focuses primarily on the direct and tangible forms of physical persecution, it is important to note that persecution as a legal concept extends well beyond physical injury. U.S. courts consistently recognize that severe emotional anguish, psychological trauma, or the credible threat of physical violence can independently meet the persecution threshold.

Future articles in this Research Library will examine these subjects in detail, including Psychological Harm as a Form of Persecution and Coercion and Psychological Control Under U.S. Asylum Law. For now, the following headnotes illustrate that the statutory and jurisprudential scope of “persecution” clearly exceeds, and is far broader than, the concept of physical harm alone:

Mashiri v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2004): psychological trauma from witnessing and enduring mob attacks and repeated threats constituted persecution.
Abay v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2004): a mother’s profound emotional anguish over her daughter’s threatened FGM was persecution.
Gatimi v. Holder, 578 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2009): the psychological effects of torture and ostracism following persecution of family members supported an asylum claim.

XII. Evidentiary Considerations

Applicants should provide:

Detailed testimony about events and motives;
Medical or psychological evaluations corroborating injury; and
Country-conditions evidence showing governmental complicity.

Credible, internally consistent testimony may suffice without documentation (Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2004)).

XIII. Relationship to Torture

Torture under 8 C.F.R. § 208.18 requires specific intent to inflict severe pain for coercive or punitive ends. Physical persecution encompasses the broader spectrum of violent acts that violate bodily integrity even without that intent. For the narrower definition of torture, see What Is “Torture” Under U.S. Law?.

Summary

Physical harm sufficient to constitute persecution includes any deliberate violence or coercive restraint causing serious bodily injury, sexual violation, or enduring trauma—particularly when committed or tolerated by the state. As reflected in Kasinga, S-A-, Mohammed, Mikhailevitch, and related precedent, asylum law protects individuals not merely from discrimination or harassment but from sustained violence and coercion that undermine human dignity and freedom.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What constitutes persecution in asylum cases?

Persecution refers to serious harm inflicted on someone because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. It is more than discrimination or harassment—it involves severe suffering such as beatings, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other forms of violence that threaten life or freedom.

2. Does persecution require physical injury?

No. U.S. asylum law does not require proof of permanent injury or visible scars. Acts like repeated beatings, unlawful detention, or credible death threats can qualify as persecution even without lasting physical damage. What matters is the severity, intent, and pattern of the harm.

3. What are examples of physical persecution recognized under U.S. law?

Examples include police beatings, detention under abusive conditions, sexual violence, female genital mutilation (FGM), and torture or near-torture-level mistreatment. Courts also recognize persecution where weapons or instruments—such as razors, restraints, or cutting tools—are deliberately used to inflict pain or control victims.

4. Is sexual violence considered persecution?

Yes. Rape and sexual assault are recognized as among the most egregious forms of persecution. They qualify when committed by state actors—or by private individuals the government is unwilling or unable to control—and when motivated by a protected ground such as gender, religion, or perceived sexual identity.

5. What is the difference between persecution and torture?

Torture is a subset of persecution. It involves the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering for a coercive or punitive purpose, such as extracting information or punishing dissent. Persecution covers a broader range of violent or coercive acts that violate bodily integrity or freedom, even if not carried out for those specific purposes.
For a detailed analysis, see What Is “Torture” Under U.S. Law?.

6. Can threats alone amount to persecution?

Yes—if they are credible and made by someone with the immediate ability to carry them out. Courts have held that a genuine death threat or threat of serious bodily harm can constitute persecution even if the harm is not ultimately carried out.

7. Does domestic or family-based abuse qualify as persecution?

It can. Domestic violence, forced confinement, or physical harm within a family can amount to persecution when motivated by a protected ground—such as gender or religion—and when the government is unwilling or unable to protect the victim.
(See In re S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328 (BIA 2000).)

8. Are psychological and emotional harms treated as persecution?

Yes, but this article focuses on direct physical harm. Severe psychological or emotional trauma—especially when caused by violence, credible threats, or state-sponsored intimidation—is also recognized as persecution. Those topics are covered in companion articles: Psychological Harm as a Form of Persecution and Coercion and Psychological Control Under U.S. Asylum Law.

9. Does persecution require government involvement?

Yes. The harm must be inflicted either by government officials or by private actors the government is unwilling or unable to control. If the government condones or turns a blind eye to abuse, that meets the legal standard for state action.

10. What evidence is needed to prove physical persecution?

Credible, detailed testimony is the foundation of every asylum claim. Supporting evidence may include medical records, psychological evaluations, photographs, affidavits from witnesses, or country-conditions reports confirming similar abuses. Courts regularly grant asylum based on credible testimony even without medical documentation.

Key Takeaway

Physical persecution encompasses any deliberate violence or coercive restraint that causes serious harm to a person’s body, security, or dignity. It is a broad concept—one that includes but is not limited to torture—and lies at the core of asylum protection under U.S. and international law.

If you or someone you represent has experienced physical violence, imprisonment, or other forms of persecution, our firm can help assess whether your situation meets the legal standards for asylum under U.S. law. Schedule a confidential consultation to discuss your case with an experienced immigration attorney.

Click Here to Schedule a Consultation

Other Helpful Resources:

USCIS Website on Asylum