First Circuit Rejects Categorical Rule that Resistance to Gangs Cannot be Political Opinion

The First Circuit has rejected a categorical rule that resistance to gangs cannot be a political opinion.

“[I]n certain locations, gangs may take on a quasi-governmental role such that opposition to them is similar to opposing a government. Whether a particular gang constitutes a political entity or only a criminal one is, of course, a question that is highly context-dependent and fact-intensive.”

“When evaluating political opinion claims based on resisting gang recruitment or gang opposition, the factfinder must determine whether the applicant has an actual or imputed political opinion; if so, it must then conduct a fact-intensive assessment of the claim to determine if there is a nexus between the opinion and the gang's conduct. Successful applicants will submit persuasive evidence showing, inter alia, (1) that they possess a political opinion, or that the gang attributed a political opinion to them, and (2) a connection between the gang conduct at issue and the actual or imputed political opinion.”

The full text of Lopez Martinez v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1225P-01A.pdf

First Circuit Rejects Gang Recruitment Asylum Claim

The First Circuit has rejected a political opinion- and particular social group-based asylum claim from an applicant resisting gang recruitment efforts.  The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals both determined that the applicant was being targeted by gang members (and would face any future targeting) because the gang members wanted to increase their ranks, and not because of the applicant's anti-gang political views or because of his familial relationship to people in the United States. 

The full text of Alvizures-Gomes v. Lynch can be found here:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-2181P-01A.pdf

Ninth Circuit Entertains Particular Social Group of "Young Women in El Salvador Who have been Solicited by Gangs"

In an unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit remanded a case in which the petitioner asserted that she was persecuted on account of her membership in the group comprised of "young women who have been solicited by gangs."  The petitioner was initially approached by four members of the Mara Salvatrucha gang who asked her to join.  She then faced a series of threatening or violent encounters with some of the same gang members, and was persecuted every week by the gangs.  The Ninth Circuit concluded that this evidence compelled the conclusion that she was persecuted on account of her membership in the proposed social group. As such, the Court remanded the case, to allow the agency to determined if the proposed social group met the revised social distinction and particularity requirements articulated by the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of W-G-R- and Matter of M-E-V-G-.  In so doing, the Court noted that it had previously determined that "persons taking concrete steps to oppose gang membership and gang authority” may be a cognizable social group, citing its decision in Pirir-Boc v. Holder.

The full text of Orellana-Lara v. Lynch can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2016/03/28/12-73221.pdf