DOL, July 26, 2024 "On August 7, 2024, the Department of Labor will host a public webinar to educate stakeholders, program users, and other interested members of the public on the changes to the...
Atud v. Garland (unpub.) "Mathurin A. Atud petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on alleged ineffective...
Shen v. Garland "Peng Shen, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge ...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/25/2024 "On January 17, 2017, DHS published a final rule with new regulatory provisions guiding the use of parole on a case...
Lance Curtright reports: "After the 5th Circuit’s initial decision in Membreno, [ Membreno-Rodriguez v. Garland, 95 F.4th 219 ] my law partner Paul Hunker (a new AILA member!) reached out to...
Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019)
(1) In Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017), the Board of ImmigrationAppeals improperly recognized the respondent’s father’s immediate family as a“particular social group” for purposes of qualifying for asylum under theImmigration and Nationality Act.
(2) All asylum applicants seeking to establish membership in a “particular socialgroup,” including groups defined by family or kinship ties, must establish thatthe group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutablecharacteristic; (2) defined with particularity; and (3) socially distinct within thesociety in question.
(3) While the Board has recognized certain clans and subclans as “particular socialgroups,” most nuclear families are not inherently socially distinct and thereforedo not qualify as “particular social groups.”
(4) The portion of the Board’s decision recognizing the respondent’s proposedparticular social group is overruled. See Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. at 42– 43 (Part II.A). The rest of the Board’s decision, including its analysis of therequired nexus between alleged persecution and the alleged protected ground, isaffirmed. See id. at 43–47 (Part II.B).