Sanchez-Perez v. Garland "One day after he pleaded guilty to violating a Tennessee domestic-violence law, the federal government initiated removal proceedings against Jose Yanel Sanchez-Perez. Ultimately...
In a letter dated April 12, 2024 the State Department and USCIS discuss "concerns about biometrics collection for applicants for T nonimmigrant status and petitioners for U nonimmigrant status abroad...
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 "This final rule adopts and replaces regulations relating to key aspects of the placement, care, and services provided to unaccompanied...
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas Issue: Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria. Case below: 75 F.4th 1157 (11th Cir....
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 "On December 19, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published an interim final rule (2016 interim rule) amending its regulations...
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).