For legal analysis of the Tenth Circuit's decision in Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, see my comment on the Denver University Law Review Online.
Bookmark this post with:
Showing posts with label Board of Immigration Appeals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Board of Immigration Appeals. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Motions to Reopen from Abroad
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals is being urged to reconsider its decision upholding a Board of Immigration Appeals regulation barring foreign nationals from filing motions to reopen from outside the United States. The Tenth Circuit's 2009 decision in Rosillo-Puga v. Holder is contrary to the position of the five other circuit courts to consider the issue. The case of Contreras-Bocanegra v. Holder is currently before the Tenth Circuit and the foreign national and amici curiae in that case are urging the court to grant en banc review of the case and then reverse course and recognize noncitizens' opportunity to seek review of unfavorable decisions from outside the United States.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
New Hope for Guatemalan Women Seeking Asylum
On July 12, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals directed immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals to give new consideration to the cases of Guatemalan women seeking asylum in the United States.
The Petitioner, Lesly Yajayra Perdomo, lost her asylum case before the immigration judge and also before the Board of Immigration Appeals. In her petition for review to the Court of Appeals, Perdomo argued that she should be granted political asylum because, as a woman, she would face almost-certain death if forced to return to Guatemala.
Successful asylum applicants must show they were persecuted because of religion, political beliefs, race, nationality, or membership in a particular social group. At issue in Perdomo's case is the definition of a "particular social group." A "particular social group" has been defined by the Board of Immigration Appeals as a group with members who share a common, immutable characteristic that members of the group either cannot change, or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences. The group must also possess "social visibility" and "particularity".
The two lower courts ruled against Perdomo, arguing that all Guatemalan women is too broad a category to constitute a particular social group. However, the Court of Appeals cited to previous cases in which it concluded that females, or young girls of a particular clan, satisfied the definition of a particular social group. The Court stated that it has only rejected certain social groups as too broad where there is no unifying relationship or characteristic to narrow the diverse and disconnected group. The Court recognized that women share innate characteristics and can therefore be appropriately categorized as a particular social group.
The statistics for asylum claims from Guatemala remain dismal - 3,250 applications were received in 2009, with only 155 granted - however, the 9th Circuit holding opens the door for immigration attorneys to begin making the argument that women can constitute a social group.
Read Perdomo v. Holder here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/12/06-71652.pdf
The Petitioner, Lesly Yajayra Perdomo, lost her asylum case before the immigration judge and also before the Board of Immigration Appeals. In her petition for review to the Court of Appeals, Perdomo argued that she should be granted political asylum because, as a woman, she would face almost-certain death if forced to return to Guatemala.
Successful asylum applicants must show they were persecuted because of religion, political beliefs, race, nationality, or membership in a particular social group. At issue in Perdomo's case is the definition of a "particular social group." A "particular social group" has been defined by the Board of Immigration Appeals as a group with members who share a common, immutable characteristic that members of the group either cannot change, or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences. The group must also possess "social visibility" and "particularity".
The two lower courts ruled against Perdomo, arguing that all Guatemalan women is too broad a category to constitute a particular social group. However, the Court of Appeals cited to previous cases in which it concluded that females, or young girls of a particular clan, satisfied the definition of a particular social group. The Court stated that it has only rejected certain social groups as too broad where there is no unifying relationship or characteristic to narrow the diverse and disconnected group. The Court recognized that women share innate characteristics and can therefore be appropriately categorized as a particular social group.
The statistics for asylum claims from Guatemala remain dismal - 3,250 applications were received in 2009, with only 155 granted - however, the 9th Circuit holding opens the door for immigration attorneys to begin making the argument that women can constitute a social group.
Read Perdomo v. Holder here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/12/06-71652.pdf
Bookmark this post with:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
