Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

willasylum
tortwillasylum

Related Cases

Hailemichael v. Gonzales
View Case »
Poeuv v. Smith
View Case »
Mei Chai Ye v. Department of Justice
View Case »
Gonzalez-De Leon v. Barr
View Case »
Humphries v. Various Federal U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service Employees
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

L%z-P�z v. Garland

Facts

Yolanda Lopez-Perez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States illegally in 2016 and was charged with removability by the Department of Homeland Security. She applied for asylum based on her membership in a particular social group of Salvadoran women in domestic relationships who are unable to leave or viewed as property. Lopez-Perez testified about the abuse she suffered from her ex-partner and her fear of returning to El Salvador, where she believed she would be harmed.

Lopez-Perez applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ('CAT'). Her application was based on membership in a particular social group and CAT. She defined the particular social group as 'Salvadoran women in domestic relationship who are unable to leave' or 'Salvadoran women who are viewed as property by virtue of their position in a domestic relationship.'

Issue

Whether the immigration judge erred in denying Lopez-Perez's application for asylum and withholding of removal based on her proposed social groups.

Lopez-Perez argues here that the IJ erred under Matter of A-R-C-G – by concluding that she had not established a nexus between her persecution and her social group.

Rule

An applicant seeking asylum must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on membership in a particular social group, and the government must be unwilling or unable to protect her from such persecution.

An applicant seeking asylum must demonstrate that she 'is unable or unwilling to avail . . . herself of the protection of [her] country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.' 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A).

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Lopez-Perez's proposed social groups were cognizable and found that they were not. The immigration judge concluded that her failure to report the abuse to authorities indicated that the government was willing and able to protect her. The court noted that remanding the case would be futile as the IJ would be bound by circuit law to conclude that the social groups were not cognizable.

The IJ intimated that Lopez-Perez's proffered social groups `'Salvadoran women in domestic relationships who are unable to leave; or Salvadoran women who are viewed as property by virtue of their position in a domestic relationship' `were cognizable. We have disagreed, holding that circularly defined social groups are not cognizable.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for review, upholding the immigration judge's decision.

We DENY the petition for review.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the immigration judge's decision, finding that Lopez-Perez's proposed social groups were not cognizable.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the immigration judge's decision, finding that Lopez-Perez's proposed social groups were not cognizable.

You must be