Asylum Archives - Philip Levin & Associates

Attorney General Holds That, In Conducting Its Review Of An Asylum Claim, The BIA Must Examine De Novo Whether The Facts Found By The Immigration Judge Satisfy All Of The Statutory Elements Of Asylum As A Matter Of Law. When Reviewing A Grant Of Asylum, The BIA Should Not Accept The Parties’ Stipulations To, Or Failures To Address, Any Of The Particular Elements Of Asylum Including, Where Necessary, The Elements Of A Particular Social Group. Instead, Unless It Affirms Without Opinion Under 8 C.F.R.§1003.1(e)(4)(i), The Board Should Meaningfully Review Each Element Of An Asylum Claim Before Affirming Such A Grant, Or Before Independently Ordering A Grant Of Asylum. Even If An Applicant Is A Member Of A Cognizable Particular Social Group And Has Suffered Persecution, An Asylum Claim Should Be Denied If The Harm Inflicted Or Threatened By The Persecutor Is Not “On Account Of” The Respondent’s Membership In That Group. That Requirement Is Especially Important To Scrutinize Where The Asserted Particular Social Group Encompasses Many Millions Of Persons In A Particular Society. One’s Membership In A Particular Social Group Cannot Be “Incidental, Tangential, Or Subordinate To The Prosecutor’s Mention…[F]or Why The Persecutor [ ] Sought To Inflict Harm.” Accordingly, Persecution That Results From Personal Animus Or Retribution Generally Does Not Support Eligibility For Asylum.

November 13, 2020 Philip Levin

On September 24, 2020, U.S. Attorney General (AG) William Barr directed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) to refer the instant case to him for review of its… CONTINUE

BIA Holds That An Immigration Judge May Rely On Inconsistencies To Support An Adverse Credibility Finding As Long As Either The Immigration Judge, The Applicant, Or The DHS Has Identified The Discrepancies And The Applicant Has Been Given An Opportunity To Explain Them During The Hearing. An Immigration Judge May, But Is Not Required To, Personally Identify An Obvious Inconsistency Where It Is Reasonable To Assume That The Applicant Was Aware Of It And Had An Opportunity To Offer An Explanation Before The Immigration Judge Relied On It.

January 29, 2020 Philip Levin

On December 12, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) denied the Respondent’s request for oral argument and dismissed his appeal of an order by the Immigration Judge… CONTINUE

BIA Holds That Torturous Conduct Committed By A Public Official Who Acts “In An Official Capacity,” That Is, “Under Color Of Law,” Is Covered By The Convention Against Torture, But Such Conduct By An Official Who Is Not Acting In An Official Capacity, Known As A “Rogue Official,” Is Not Covered By The Convention. The Key Consideration In Determining If A Public Official Was Acting Under Color Of Law Is Whether He Was Able To Engage In Torturous Conduct Because Of His Government Position Or If He Could Have Done So Without A Connection To The Government.

January 6, 2020 Philip Levin

On December 6, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) in a lengthy and extensively footnoted decision, dismissed the appeal of a respondent whose applications for political asylum,… CONTINUE

BIA Holds That An Immigration Judge Has The Authority To Dismiss Removal Proceedings Per 8 C.F.R. §239.2(a)(7) Upon A Finding That Respondent Abused The Asylum Process By Filing A Meritless Asylum Application With USCIS For The Sole Purpose Of Seeking Cancellation Of Removal In The Immigration Court.

July 15, 2019 Philip Levin

On May 31, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed an appeal by respondents of the granting by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of a DHS motion to… CONTINUE

Recent Attorney General Sessions Holdings re the Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 338 (BIA 2014)

August 16, 2018 Philip Levin

Attorney General Sessions Holds re the Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 338 (BIA 2014): Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 338 (BIA 2014) Was Wrongly Decided And Is Overruled; One… CONTINUE