Arizona v. Garland "This is a challenge by 19 states to an administrative action of the Executive Branch establishing a new procedure for adjudicating asylum applications under federal immigration...
Moran v. Mayorkas "At the time of Mr. Valadez Moran's birth, it is more likely than not that his mother, Ms. Moran, was a citizen of the United States by virtue of her birth in Elsa, Texas on...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/19/2024 "Notice of a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) between the Government of the United States and the Government of Japan...
Courtesy of AILA; AILA Doc. 24022603 "The Department of State’s Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Consular Affairs (L/CA), in coordination with the Visa Office in the Bureau of Consular...
Abdulahad v. Garland "Walid Abdulahad petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (the “Board”) denial of his motion to reopen based on changed country conditions...
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).