American Immigration Council (Council) and the National Immigration Project, Jan. 17, 2025 "A stay of removal prevents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from executing a final order of removal...
Texas v. USA "This is the latest chapter in the long-running litigation challenging the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, commonly known as DACA. In 2021, a district court held that...
Matter of Arciniegas-Patino Where parties were properly served with electronic notice of the briefing schedule, a representative’s failure to diligently monitor the inbox, including the spam folder...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/17/2025 "The United States supports the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the residents of Hong Kong. The People's...
Alan Lee, Jan. 16, 2025 "USCIS’s second part of the H-1B proposed regulations, “Modernizing H-1B Requirements, Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program, and Program Improvements Affecting...
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).