The United States Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) has just reversed the denial of an asylum application for a citizen and native of Guatemala. Lesly Yajayra Perdomo sought asylum based on her fear of persecution as a young woman in
Guatemala. Perdomo argued that women in Guatemala are murdered at disproportionally
high rate with impunity.
The Immigration Court denied her application on the basis that young women in
Guatemala were not a cognizable social group, and that a social group consisting of "all women in Guatemala" is over-broad
and "a mere demographic division of the population rather than a
particular social group."
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the Court's decisions finding that Perdomo failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in
Guatemala on account of her membership in a particular social group. The BIA determined that a group of "women between the ages of fourteen and
forty who are Guatemalan and live in the United States" is too broad
to qualify as a protected social group. The BIA also rejected Perdomo's
revised definition of the protected social group — "all women in
Guatemala." The BIA concluded that this social group was even broader,
and was a demographic rather than a cognizable social group under the
INA.
On appeal to the 9th found that the decision below was inconsistent with BIA and 9th Circuit precedent and granted the petition. The case has been remand for further proceedings. See PERDOMO v. HOLDER, No. 06-71652, July 12, 2010. The case gives a great analysis of what the law is of the 9th Circuit relating to the definition of what constitutes a social group for asylum purposes.
Another point for the little guy.
