Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
M-G-O-, AXXX XXX 611 (BIA Feb. 4, 2014)

M-G-O-, AXXX XXX 611 (BIA Feb. 4, 2014)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 934|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found the respondent, a citizen of Mexico, qualified for withholding of removal based on his membership in a particular social group consisting of effeminate gay males with female gender identities. The Board also remanded for further consideration of the respondent’s asylum application because the immigration judge failed to provide an opportunity to explain the reasons for her failure to meet the one-year filing deadline. The decision was written by Member Teresa Donovan and joined by Member Linda Wendtland. Member Roger Pauley concurred with the decision except for the order remanding for consideration of whether the respondent qualifies for an exception to the one-year filing deadline.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found the respondent, a citizen of Mexico, qualified for withholding of removal based on his membership in a particular social group consisting of effeminate gay males with female gender identities. The Board also remanded for further consideration of the respondent’s asylum application because the immigration judge failed to provide an opportunity to explain the reasons for her failure to meet the one-year filing deadline. The decision was written by Member Teresa Donovan and joined by Member Linda Wendtland. Member Roger Pauley concurred with the decision except for the order remanding for consideration of whether the respondent qualifies for an exception to the one-year filing deadline.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Feb 09, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/25/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Free, Robe Andrew Esq. Bae Johnston LLC 217 2nd Avenue Noh Nashvie, TN 3720
U   
Execuve Oce  I gaon Rvew
Bo o Immon Ae O e o he Clerk
5 I 7 Leesb Pk, S 000 Fal Curc V inia 3
OHS/ICE ce
 Chief Counsel -MEM 6 N Main St, Site 3A Memphis, TN 3803 Name: G, M A 6 Date of this notce 2/204
Encosed is a copy of the Bod's decson and orde n the boe-eenced cse. Enclosre
Panel Members: uy, Rog Wdd Lid
S
Doov T
L
Sncerely,
D
o
c
a
Don C Che Ck
 Ueeam ockt
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: M-G-O-, AXXX XXX 611 (BIA Feb. 4, 2014)
 
U Depamen of Jusice
Executive Oe
r
Immiaton Review Decso of e Bod oma Appeals
Fl
Church, Virginia
20530
 Fe: 61 -Memphis
1
I
reM GO N REMOVL PROCEEDNGS  APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Rober ndrew Free, Esire ON BEHALF OF DHS Rook Moore  Assisn Cef Consel CHARGE Date
.
 Noice Sec. 22(aX6)(A)(), &N Ac [8 USC § 82(a)()(A)(i)]  Presen wou beng admied or proled  PPLCATON: Asym; wolding of remova Convenion Against Torre
FEB
-
4
2014
The responden a naive and cizen of Mexco appeas he Iniation udge's decsion dated e 2 202 he mmigaon dge denied he respondens applications r asylum and wiolding of removal nder secons 208(a) and 24(b)(3) of the miaton d  Natonaty Ac 8 USC §§ l 58(a) and 23(b)(3) respectvey and her request r protection  nder e Convenon Against Tore Te respondts appea s sustained in prt e record will be remanded r rther proceedings consstent wh this decison
1
Te responden contends
 he mmiaion udges decison should be reversed as se credby esabsed pas persecton on acco of a poeced ound. Firs we agee wi the respondent  t e mmation Jdges decison ha se s mebed om asylum (ie. due  o her nmey applcaon and falure o presen a valid justication hereto) was made wihout rst aording e responden a opporty to presen tesmony to explain te reons r her deay n seeking asyum (I. a 2 Tr at 2829 20 Group Exh 2 Respondens Noice of  Appeal  Aacment at ) As such, we nd a e mmgration udge sould consider on remad weer e respondent's mey led asym appicaton s excused nder section 208(a)(2)(D) of e Act  Nex, as te issue of credby
h
not been raised on appea we see no cler error in he mmigraon udges posive crediblity mding ( at 8)
See
8 CFR. §§ 003l(d)(3)(i)(ii) (e Bord revews n mgraon Jdge's ctua and credbliy ndings r clear eror and reviews de novo uesons of aw discreion judgment d al other issues in appeals om decisions of mmaon dges) However we conclude hat te mmigaton udge ered as a maer of law n holding at he respondent did no meet her bden r whholding of removal.
 As recozed by  he mgraon udge the respondent is a ansgendered person but prered to be idened as a male (. at �2 Tr at 3 Respondents r at 2).
Cite as: M-G-O-, AXXX XXX 611 (BIA Feb. 4, 2014)
 
 611 On pa e responden ase a e Immiaon udge schacterzed her proered socia group, whch consiss of eemnae gay males with male gender idenites .J at 12; Respondens Br a 9). We aee hat te Imaion Judge provded  ucler nalysis on  the issue of nex given his coicng ndgs d rerences o nonbinding cse aw  to  whether te responden demonsated membershp  a picul social oup pursuat to  the above designaion  we as on· accoun of beng a homosexu I a 12, 1-15, 18). Specically, wile e Imiaon udge hed a te respondents proered group would pssibly quai r asylum, he d ha respondent w no included in this group because she amited tat she woud chnge the way she ives nd ide her sexu oientation out of  if reed o Mexico .J a 1214). However  we nd ta te respondent esabished te  validy of te aremenoned soci oup  we  her membership erein, nd he ct hat she woud de her male idenity or sexu orientaion due  o  r her saey does not negate  e muabiy of such chracteriscs (Respondens Br. a 89) Furthermore, it is wellesbished ha sexua orenaton ca  te basis o a valid social goup under he Ac (Tr a 25
S Mar ofToooAoo
20 I& Dec. 819 (BA 1994) o he exten at the Immigraion Judge held hat e respondens erwho was te main soure of harm r e responden-so abused oer members o te mily r reasons  uassociaed wt teir sexuaity," an applic need not prove
a protced gound ws e oy bis r the hm in queston so ong a a protced ground was or will be a le one cena  reon r e cmed pscuion (. at 0 Respondens Br. a 12).
S Mattr o  N
- 25 I&N Dec. 526 BIA 201)
 alo Mattr of JBN& SM
2 I&N Dec. 208 213-15 (BIA 2007)
(ctg
secton 208b)()(B)i) o he Act). In addon we nd tat te Imigraon Judge ered in holdng th the hm experieced by  he respondent did no rse o e eve of persecuon s compated by the Act In s regd  we see no clear error in he Immiation Judge's decision to no consider the respondent's sexual assa om her ers coworker due to inconsisences in the record I a 8 10). However,  te nmgraion udge appeared o credit he respondents caim o suering a homophobic atack by n ukno asaiant in pubic nd most signictly,  the Immigation Judge accepted  her accot of enduing ndy abue a chid d adoescentr my years at e  hnds o her ther (ie cnisting of piso whippings, lashings om a bel beatngs om a  machee hne and, on one occasion a sabbng om a machete) r her eemnae behavior  a 35 8 10; r. a 3238 5256 61, 65 70-71 Group
E
2) The respondent aso suered verbal abuse om her her in the f of homophobic slrs nd treats of dea due to  he respondents sexuiy and her er aso deced s vioence at e respondents moer
2
For purposes of cy we noe at the Unied Saes ou o Appeals r te Sixt Circuit, in  whose jurisdicion hs mater ose hs ayzed a ctully smil cam r reie in n pubished decision
S Gralva  Gozal
212 ed Appx 541, 543 6t Cir 2007) (discusing e applicts membrsp n a picu socia group consisting of obviously eemnate homosexua men") Sim to the respondent here Galva claim[ed] ha he h  been  very eemate om e me he wa sm boy d as a resu hs been abused r most of s li.
S id.
Athough te Immigraon Judge in hat ce w convincd tat Gva w  eeminate homosexua nd observed at homosexuality had been recogized as a picur social goup by he Bod, he nd ha Gravas claim of pt persecutio laced credibility
S i
a 54546. 2
Cite as: M-G-O-, AXXX XXX 611 (BIA Feb. 4, 2014)

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->