All Cases

Death threats alone rarely rise to the level of persecution and only do so if they are objectively credible and issued by a person or persons with the immediate ability to carry them out.

The serious nonpolitical crime bar to asylum and withholding of removal does not include a duress exception.

(1) Past persecution creates a presumption of future threat to life or freedom on the basis of the original claim, which may be rebutted by a fundamental change in circumstances. (2) An IJ cannot rely on generalized crime and widespread violence unrelated to the original claim to find the presumption rebutted, particularly where other evidence suggests a fundamental change such that the respondent will no longer be harmed on a protected ground.

(1) Respondent's children are no longer qualifying relatives for cancellation because they have aged out (turned 21). (2) Respondent has not demonstrated that the economic detriment, diminished educational opportunities, and emotional hardship his children may experience on removal would constitute exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.

A respondent's or qualifying relative's lay testimony about a medical or mental health condition will generally be insufficient to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship where expert testimony, reports, or medical evidence exist and could reasonably have been produced.

(1) Disapproval of or opposition to criminal gangs is not sufficient to establish a political opinion under the INA. (2) To establish a political opinion, an alien must have an actual or imputed belief or conviction regarding a discrete cause tied to a government of a country, including a de facto government.

Based on inconsistencies and omissions in the record, the IJ clearly erred in concluding the applicant presented a credible claim for asylum.

(1) IJ clearly erred finding respondent credible without addressing inconsistencies and implausibilities in the record. (2) IJ's conclusory finding of a pattern or practice of persecution against Anglophones in Cameroon was not supported by record evidence, particularly given the IJ did not distinguish the respondent's family members who remain unharmed in the country.

(1) The proposed PSG 'married Mexican women who are unable to leave their relationship' is not cognizable because it is circularly defined and lacks particularity. (2) The existence of a lawful marriage cannot be presumed simply because two persons are cohabitating or have children in common.

(1) 'Mexican men with Schizoaffective Disorder,' defined only by such diagnosis, is not cognizable as a PSG. (2) A series of speculative occurrences that also lack evidence of persecutory intent is insufficient to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution.

(1) A 3-day detention during which respondent was beaten once but did not sustain significant injury does not rise to the level of persecution. (2) A government's general deference to tribal mechanisms for resolving tribal conflict does not indicate the government is unable or unwilling to control persecutors within a tribe.

Respondent's criminal history — including charges that did not result in a conviction — and his reluctance to accept responsibility for criminal acts outweigh favorable factors relevant to the exercise of discretion for cancellation of removal.

An alien's lack of candor regarding his criminal history is a significant adverse factor when exercising discretion on an application for cancellation of removal.

(1) Conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance under Pennsylvania law is a particularly serious crime, barring both asylum and withholding. (2) Respondent did not establish CAT eligibility where past mistreatment in Jamaica based on sexual orientation was by private individuals and she did not show a public official would acquiesce to future torture.

The fact that a respondent is granted withholding of removal is an important consideration in whether the respondent may be denied asylum as a matter of discretion based on weighing favorable and adverse factors. The mitigating impact a grant of withholding has on the risk of future persecution must be considered. Matter of Kasinga and Matter of H- distinguished.

The words 'arrival' and 'arrived' in the serious nonpolitical crime bar provisions at INA §§ 208(b)(2)(A)(iii) and 241(b)(3)(B)(iii) refer to the alien's most recent arrival in the United States.

An IJ may not determine that a respondent is credible solely because the respondent was candid in admitting he previously lied to obtain immigration benefits.

(1) Conscription does not serve as a standalone basis for asylum absent a nexus to a protected ground. (2) Conscription requiring an alien to engage in internationally condemned inhuman conduct constitutes persecution only when tethered to a protected ground. (3) International condemnation of Russian military actions is insufficient; the respondent must show he himself would necessarily be required to engage in inhuman conduct on account of a protected ground.

(1) Respondent found incompetent for withholding-only proceedings who was appointed a qualified representative was provided adequate safeguards for fair proceedings. (2) IJ properly found the mental health-based PSG not established where evidence did not show a particularized risk of future persecution based on the mental health condition.

DHS's oral motion to pretermit respondents' applications for asylum and related protection was sufficient notice of its intent to remove respondents to a third country pursuant to an asylum cooperative agreement.

DHS is not required to provide an implementing instrument showing the operating procedures for an asylum cooperative agreement or a complete set of operative terms in order to establish that an alien is subject to the ACA in the context of the safe third country bar.

The 'social distinction' element of a particular social group must generally be measured on a countrywide basis, rather than from the perspective of a neighborhood or other limited geographic location within a country.

(1) Unique barriers to reporting harm faced by children do not apply to adults, including adults who suffered harm as children. (2) Given Russia's size, respondent's membership in the majority religion, and insufficient evidence that her family maintains interest in locating her more than 2 years after threats, the IJ's finding that the respondent could not reasonably relocate was clearly erroneous.

When an alien is subject to an ACA and the record is devoid of evidence showing an individualized risk of harm in the ACA country of removal, it is generally unnecessary to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the applicability of the safe third country bar.

Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021) is overruled. IJs and the Board shall adhere to Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018). By extension, Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), and any decision issued in reliance thereupon, is also overruled.

Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021) is overruled. IJs and the Board should adhere to Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019), which held that nuclear family members generally do not constitute a cognizable PSG because nuclear families, as defined by the biological or legal relationship between an alien and family members, lack the requisite social distinction in most societies.

The stay of the Board's prior order is vacated. Matter of Negusie, 28 I&N Dec. 120 (A.G. 2020) — holding that the persecutor bar contains no duress exception — is now the operative opinion.

(1) If DHS claims an asylum cooperative agreement bars an applicant from seeking asylum, the IJ must determine whether the safe third country bar applies prior to and separate from considering asylum eligibility. (2) A respondent subject to an ACA bears the burden by a preponderance of the evidence to show she will more likely than not be persecuted on a protected ground or tortured in the ACA country to avoid application of the bar.

If the factual allegations underlying asylum, withholding, and CAT claims, viewed in the light most favorable to the respondent, do not establish prima facie eligibility for relief or protection, an IJ may pretermit the applications without a full evidentiary hearing on the merits.

(1) Perceived or imputed PSG membership only satisfies the PSG requirements if the underlying group of which the respondent is perceived to be a member is, standing alone, sufficiently cognizable. (2) 'Perceived Salvadoran gang members' is not a cognizable PSG. Matter of E-A-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 591 (BIA 2008), reaffirmed.

(1) A respondent's nonresponsive and evasive testimony, including when related to corroboration, supports an adverse credibility determination. (2) A lack of corroboration may be an independent basis to find that a respondent has not met the burden of proof to establish a claim for asylum or withholding of removal.

A single attempt to report an incident of harm by private actors to local police, without further harm from the police themselves or evidence of widespread collusion with alleged persecutors, does not establish that the government as a whole is unable or unwilling to protect a respondent from persecution.

Respondent did not establish a well-founded fear based on a pretextual summons for political activity where a similar summons did not result in harm to his son and the respondent lived for years in Moldova without harm following the summons.

Applicant who cooperated with U.S. law enforcement against a cartel did not demonstrate a clear probability of torture where fear was based on unsubstantiated statements from a coconspirator and generalized evidence of cartel violence rather than individualized risk.

IJ erred in finding that respondent, who had two DWI convictions, had overcome the presumption that he lacked good moral character based solely on his care for his son and history of employment.

Respondent's repeated violations of workplace safety regulations resulting in the deaths of two employees are significant adverse factors weighing against a favorable exercise of discretion for purposes of cancellation of removal.

IJ erred in finding respondent warranted a favorable exercise of discretion for cancellation where he engaged in systemic criminal fraud for decades; recent expressed remorse and rehabilitative efforts while in prison were insufficient to overcome his lengthy and serious criminal history.

Criminal history of drug use and exposure of children to drugs outweigh favorable factors — including claimed remorse and stated intention to avoid drug use — warranting discretionary denial of cancellation of removal.

Respondent has not established exceptional and extremely unusual hardship where qualifying relatives will remain in the United States and treatment for their mental health conditions and developmental delays will not be affected by the respondent's removal; economic detriment and emotional hardship of family separation, standing alone, do not suffice.

Evidence that a respondent had a legal right to enter, live, work, and own property indefinitely in the country of proposed resettlement demonstrates that the respondent was offered 'some other type of permanent resettlement' for purposes of the firm resettlement bar.

Vacated Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) in its entirety; restored Matter of A-R-C-G- as binding precedent and removed restrictions on domestic violence and gang-based asylum claims.

A single document must provide all required NTA information—including time and place—to trigger the stop-time rule; a later follow-up notice cannot cure a defective initial NTA for stop-time purposes.

Held that claims by aliens who suffer domestic violence or gang violence generally will not qualify for asylum; overruled Matter of A-R-C-G- and raised significant barriers to domestic violence and gang-based PSG claims.

A Notice to Appear that does not specify the time and place of the removal hearing is not a valid NTA under the INA and therefore does not trigger the stop-time rule under § 240A(d)(1).

Recognized that an applicant's nuclear family may constitute a particular social group where the family is targeted as a unit, but family-based PSGs must still satisfy particularity and social distinction.

The 9th Circuit applies an 'a reason' nexus standard (not 'a central reason') to withholding of removal claims; the two standards differ, and courts must apply the appropriate one for each form of relief.

Under the REAL ID Act, IJs may not demand corroboration of inherently personal experiences such as sexual orientation without first finding that the applicant's testimony was not credible and explaining why the corroboration is needed.

Reaffirmed that social distinction is evaluated from the perspective of the society in question; IJs must make explicit findings regarding social distinction based on the record evidence.

CAT protection requires showing the government would acquiesce in torture; the 9th Circuit clarified the acquiescence standard, holding that a government's willful blindness to torture can constitute acquiescence.

Clarified that the PSG requirements are 'social distinction' (not social visibility) and 'particularity'; a group need not be visible or recognizable by others but must be perceived as a distinct group in the relevant society.

Former members of Salvadoran youth gangs who have renounced their membership do not constitute a cognizable PSG because the group lacks particularity and social distinction.

Recognized 'married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship' as a cognizable PSG under certain factual circumstances, opening a pathway for domestic violence asylum claims.

Reversed denial where IJ failed to consider whether proposed PSG of Guatemalan witnesses who refuse to cooperate with gangs was socially distinct; remanded for proper social distinction analysis including expert and country condition evidence.

Persons who testify against gang members can constitute a PSG or be persecuted on account of political opinion; the BIA must consider whether witnesses against criminal organizations are socially distinct in their home country.

IJ must provide notice and opportunity to explain before drawing adverse inference from failure to produce corroborating evidence; due process requires applicants have a fair chance to address corroboration deficiencies.

An alien's desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or personal malice does not implicate a protected ground; gang violence motivated by personal animus or desire for criminal profit does not establish nexus.

Under the REAL ID Act, adverse credibility findings must be based on the totality of the circumstances; minor inconsistencies that do not relate to the heart of the claim cannot alone support an adverse credibility finding.

Bhutanese Hindus subjected to ethnic and religious discrimination amounting to persecution had a well-founded fear; even non-severe acts can cumulatively constitute persecution.

Courts retain jurisdiction to review legal questions and constitutional claims arising from hardship determinations even when the ultimate hardship finding is unreviewable; due process and legal error claims may be cognizable.

Salvadoran youth who resist gang recruitment and family members of such youth do not constitute cognizable PSGs; the proposed groups lacked the required particularity and social visibility.

Persons resistant to gang recruitment in El Salvador and young men in El Salvador do not constitute cognizable PSGs due to lack of social visibility and particularity.

The stop-time rule under INA § 240A(d)(1) is triggered by service of a Notice to Appear; continuous physical presence ceases upon NTA service regardless of whether the NTA specifies a hearing date.

Persecution of a family member can be 'on account of' the applicant's imputed political opinion even when the applicant personally holds no such opinion; affirmed asylum for family members of a political figure.

Homosexuality is an immutable characteristic; gay Lebanese men constitute a particular social group; the BIA must accept that homosexual orientation is fixed and cannot be changed.

A finding of past persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution; the government bears the burden of rebutting this presumption through evidence of changed country conditions or internal relocation.

Reversed denial of asylum where applicant, a Senegalese journalist, faced threats; government's desire to silence him reflected imputation of a political opinion regardless of whether he personally held that opinion.

A family unit can constitute a particular social group; members of a specific family who are targeted as a family unit may establish PSG membership.

In mixed-motive cases, asylum is warranted if persecution occurred at least in part because of a protected ground; the protected characteristic need not be the sole or even primary motivation.

The 9th Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary hardship determinations; the statutory bar on judicial review of hardship findings applies to both the ultimate determination and the factual findings supporting it.

Affirmed that the hardship standard for non-LPR cancellation is high; routine hardship of separation from U.S. family members does not satisfy exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.

Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship requires hardship substantially beyond the ordinary hardship expected when a person who has lived in the U.S. for a long time and has family here is removed; financial and social disruption alone is insufficient.

Hardship to qualifying relatives must be assessed cumulatively across all qualifying relatives; found exceptional hardship where single mother of six U.S. citizen children, who spoke no Spanish, would take children to Mexico where they had no ties.

Affirmed that the hardship standard is high; ordinary disruption to family life and economic hardship do not suffice; each case must be evaluated on its own facts with individualized assessment.

Government cannot avoid asylum obligations by pointing to internal relocation where relocation would be unreasonable or where persecution is carried out by the government itself or with government complicity.

Indo-Fijians constitute a PSG based on their race and ethnicity; reversed the BIA's denial of asylum where applicant feared persecution as a member of a recognized ethnic minority.

Identified relevant factors for hardship: respondent's length of residence, qualifying relative's health and age, country conditions, financial impact, educational opportunities, and extended family ties.

Recognized 'young women of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu Tribe who have not had FGM, as practiced by that tribe, and who oppose the practice' as a cognizable PSG, granting asylum based on fear of female genital mutilation.

In mixed-motive cases, persecution is 'on account of' a protected ground if the protected characteristic is at least one central reason for the persecution.

Recognized homosexuality as an immutable characteristic and persons identified as homosexuals in Cuba as a particular social group.

Adopted the 10% standard for objective well-founded fear: an applicant need not show a likelihood of persecution exceeding 50%; a 10% chance of persecution if returned may suffice.

The 'well-founded fear' standard for asylum is more generous than the 'clear probability' standard for withholding; an applicant need not show persecution is more likely than not—a genuine possibility suffices.

Established the immutable characteristics test for particular social group: a group whose members share a common, immutable characteristic they either cannot change or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences.