in the Second Circuit by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.2007) (en banc)). But see Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir.2005) (remanding to BIA to address this question in the first instance). We have not decided this question in a published opinion. In Axmed v. U.S. Attorney General, 145 Fed.Appx. 669, 675 (11th Cir.2005), however, we seemed to endorse decisions prohibiting these derivative asylum claims where the daughter has a right to remain in United States. In addition, the Fourth Circuit has held that “persecution” for purposes of asylum and withholding of removal does not include the psychological harm that a parent would endure if his or her daughter were to be subjected to FGM against his or her will. See Niang, 492 F.3d at 511-12 (<HOLDING>). The Sixth Circuit reached the opposite
recognizing that a petitioner for asylum and withholding of removal can demonstrate direct persecution based on the harm of being forced to witness the pain and suffering of her daughter if she were subjected to fgm holding that because persecution cannot be based on a fear of psychological harm alone petitioner was ineligible for withholding of removal based on the psychological harm she would suffer if her us citizen daughter were to undergo fgm holding that the village could regulate doortodoor solicitation based on a fear of an anticipated harm without proof of actual harm holding that likelihood of irreparable harm must be based on evidence in the record not unsupported and conclusory statements regarding harm the plaintiff might suffer holding the wifes testimony that husbands release would cause psychological harm to other family members was insufficient to support commitment courts finding that husband would cause serious bodily harm to another person