Garcia Cortes v. Garland "Virginia Garcia Cortes petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for cancellation...
State Department, June 13, 2024 " THIS NOTICE WILL BE UPDATED AS MORE INFORMATION COMES AVAILABLE. PLEASE CHECK BACK FOR FINAL INSTRUCTIONS NO LATER THAN AUGUST 2, 2024. NOTICE OF CLASS-WIDE RELIEF...
Campos-Chavez v. Garland No. 22–674, 54 F. 4th 314, affirmed; No. 22–884, 24 F. 4th 1315, reversed (Mendez- Colín) and vacated and remanded (Singh). ALITO, J., delivered the opinion...
Hats off to Ana Maria Portela (Arocha) for scoring this victory on June 5, 2024!
USCIS, June 12, 2024 "USCIS is issuing guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual that interprets that the confidentiality protections under 8 U.S.C. 1367 end at naturalization, which will allow naturalized...
Court staff summary: "The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and remanded for further consideration in light of Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1083 (2013) (en banc), Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (2014), and Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (2014).
Petitioner asserted a fear of persecution by gangs in Guatemala on account of his membership in a particular social group characterized as individuals “taking concrete steps to oppose gang membership and gang authority.” The panel first held that the Board’s recent decisions in Matter of W-G-R and Matter of M-E-V-G did not affect the construction of social group set forth by the en banc court in Henriquez-Rivas, with the qualification that the persecutors’ perception is not itself enough to make a group socially distinct, and persecutory conduct alone cannot define the group, rather, the persecutor’s perspective is one factor among others to be considered in determining a group’s social visibility. The panel noted that the critical issue in each of the new Board decisions is whether there is evidence to support social recognition of the proposed group, and the panel explained that to be consistent with its own precedent, the Board may not reject a group solely because it previously found a similar group in a different society to lack social distinction or particularity. Because the Board in this case did not perform the required evidence-based inquiry as to whether Guatemalan society recognizes petitioner’s proposed social group, the panel remanded to the Board for reconsideration in light of Henriquez-Rivas, Matter of W-G-R and Matter of ME-V-G.
The panel explicitly did not decide whether the Board’s requirements of “social distinction” and “particularity” constitute a reasonable interpretation of the term “particular social group.” The panel remanded petitioner’s CAT claim for the Boardto provide a reasoned explanation of the basis for its decision." - Pirir-Boc v. Holder, May 7, 2014. [Hats off to Roger S. Green and Jenny Tsai!]