These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
LGBT
The Tenth Circuit has determined that “the acts of violence are so widespread that any reasonable adjudicator would find a pattern or practice of persecution against transgender women in Honduras.”
The full text of Gonzalez Aguilar v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110663824.pdf
The Third Circuit has reversed the agency’s denial of asylum to a gay Ghanian man. The Third Circuit noted that the fact that the man was only attacked once and did not seek medical treatment was not dispositive. Moreover, the Court found no need for the petitioner to have sought police protection, given that Ghana criminalizes same-sex relations.
The full text of Doe v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/181342pa.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has remanded a case in which the Board of Immigration Appeals denied a motion to reopen to seek protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on changed country conditions in Ethiopia for the LGBT community. In so doing, the court noted that "at least two of the reports submitted with Agonafer’s motion to reopen provide reports of violence directed against homosexuals in Ethiopia." "It is undisputed that Agonafer is a homosexual male. Given Agonafer’s sexual orientation and the evidence of the treatment of homosexuals in Ethiopia, there is sufficient evidence that, if proved, would establish his prima facie eligibility for deferral of removal under the CAT."
The full text of Agonafer v. Sessions can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/06/23/13-73122.pdf
In an unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit has applied the rationale of Bringas-Rodriguez to an asylum applicant whose claim was based on a future fear of harm, and not on past persecution. Thus, even in cases involving future persecution, courts must consider that legislative developments in Mexico cannot be conflated with "on-the-ground progress" regarding the treatment of the LGBT community.
The decision in Hernandez v. Sessions can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2017/04/20/13-71356.pdf
In the context of an asylum claim raised by a gay Mexican man, the Ninth Circuit has determined that credible written and oral testimony that reporting private harm is futile and potentially dangerous, that other young gay men had reported their abuse to the Mexican police to no avail, and country reports and news articles documenting official and private persecution of individuals on account of their sexual orientation—satisfies the Court's longstanding evidentiary standards for establishing past persecution. In so doing, the court overruled its prior decision in Castro-Martinez v. Holder to the extent that it held that the failure to report harm by private parties to the police created an evidentiary gap, particularly when the harm is inflicted on a child. The en banc decision is a terrific victory for the LGBT immigrant community, breathing new life into Mexican LGBT asylum claims.
The full text of the en banc decision in Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/03/08/13-72682.pdf
The Seventh Circuit has remanded a case in which the petitioner sought withholding of removal on account of his status as an HIV positive, unmarried male, who would be perceived by Honduran society as gay on account of his medical conditions. The court noted that the applicant's claim was corroborated by an expert witness, and that the Immigration Judge gave full credit to that expert's testimony. The court also reiterated that the "more likely than not standard" for withholding of removal cannot be taken literally to require a "greater than 50% chance" of persecution.
The full text of Velasquez-Banegas can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has withdrawn its opinion in Bringas-Rodriguez v. Lynch and agreed to rehear the case en banc. The decision was widely viewed as severely limited asylum-related relief for gay men from Mexico.
The order granting rehearing en banc can be found here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/06/14/13-72682ebo.pdf
My original blog post on the decision can be found here: http://www.sabrinadamast.com/journal/2015/11/22/ninth-circuit-denies-asylum-related-relief-for-gay-male-from-mexico
Violence and persecution in one's home country can be one of the most terrifying experiences that a person can endure. Asylum cases are almost always compelling, which is why it is such a joy for me when my clients are approved for asylum. In a recent case, an African client was harmed on account of her sexual orientation. She had to flee to the United States, leaving behind many family members. I'm happy to say that today, she is an asylee, and we have begun the process of immigrating her family members to join her!
Attorney advertising and stories of past success do not guarantee future results.
Carlos Bringas Rodriguez was repeatedly sexually abused by his relatives and neighbor as a child. His uncle clearly told Bringas Rodriguez that he was abusing him because he was gay. Bringas Rodriguez never reported the abuse to the police. He testified before the Immigration Judge that several of his gay friends had reported abuse to the Mexican police and that the police had failed to do anything. Nevertheless, the Immigration Judge found that Bringas Rodriguez had not established that the Mexican police were unable or unwilling to protect him from harm. The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Ninth Circuit agreed. The Ninth Circuit also noted that its decision in Castro-Martinez v. Holder foreclosed the argument that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against homosexuals in Mexico.
The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the denial of Bringas Rodriguez's request for protection under the Convention Against Torture, finding that the past harm he experienced did not compel a finding of a likelihood of future torture and suggesting that he could internally relocate to Mexico City, an area more tolerant of homosexuals.
Finally, the Court affirmed the denial of Bringas Rodriguez's motion for remand based on his HIV diagnosis, finding that he did not provide evidence s regarding how his status as an HIV positive homosexual changes the outcome of his case, and noting that the lack of access to HIV drugs is a problem suffered not only by homosexuals but by the Mexican population as a whole.
Judge Fletcher wrote a compelling dissent, casting doubt on the rationale of Castro- Martinez and finding that even under the standards of that case, Bringas Rodriguez had demonstrated asylum eligibility.
The full text of Bringas Rodriguez v. Lynch can be found here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/11/19/13-72682.pdf
