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...
Sorto-Guzman v. Garland
"Petitioners Zoila Sorto-Guzman and Axel Rivas-Sorto, a twenty-three-year-old mother and her seven-year-old son, respectively, seek asylum in the United States after fleeing El Salvador following death threats and violence at the hands of the Mara 18 gang due to Sorto-Guzman’s Catholic religion. An immigration judge (IJ) found that Sorto-Guzman’s testimony was credible and that one of the death threats she received had a nexus to her statutorily protected right to religion. However, the IJ then concluded that the death threat did not rise to the level of past persecution because the threat never came to fruition. It thus denied her application for asylum and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed that decision. We have repeatedly said, “the ‘threat of death’ qualifies as persecution.” Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 126 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005)). The IJ, and the BIA in adopting the opinion, erred in ignoring our clear precedent and instead implemented a higher burden than we require. We refuse to follow such a “fruition” test and instead apply our longstanding precedent. We hold Sorto-Guzman was entitled to the presumption that she has a well-founded fear of persecution. Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has carried its burden to rebut the presumption that Sorto-Guzman has a well-founded fear of persecution. ... In sum, we hold that the IJ’s decision, which the BIA adopted, blatantly ignored our long line of cases establishing that the threat of death alone establishes past persecution. This was legal error, and therefore, an abuse of discretion. See Cordova v. Holder, 759 F.3d 332, 337 (4th Cir. 2014). We hold that Sorto-Guzman has established she was subjected to past persecution in El Salvador. She is thereby entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution."
[Hats off to Jeremy McKinney!]