Thomson Reuters' June 2025 issue of Immigration Briefings highlighted Katie Cantone-Hardy's article, "Shouldn't All Asylum Be ‘Humanitarian?’ A Case for Merging Traditional and Humanitarian Asylum and Eliminating the Particular Social Group," which explores the challenges of navigating U.S. asylum law and proposes a unified approach rooted in its international humanitarian origins. Cantone-Hardy argues for eliminating the "particular social group" (PSG) category in asylum applications to reduce confusion and better reflect the realities of modern displacement and proposes a two-pronged solution to the quandary created by PSG: first, to amend the refugee definition in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to substitute "membership in a particular social group" with "other serious harm," and second, to provide step-by-step guidance for implementation at all levels of asylum adjudication. "Over the last half-century, the PSG ground has posed persistent and increasingly egregious challenges to asylum eligibility," Cantone-Hardy wrote. "In a contemporary society with ever-evolving conceptions of identity categories and belonging, this framework – which has posed challenges in U.S. jurisprudence since its inception – no longer serves." Cantone-Hardy continues, "[The proposed] change would absorb an amended version of the humanitarian asylum process into a singular multistep inquiry for all asylum applicants and allow an asylum seeker to qualify either by establishing a nexus with one of the four preexisting, clear-cut categories – race, religion, nationality, and political opinion – or by proving other serious harm." The article can be accessed here.