Asylum Chat 1/30/15 – Asylum Committee AILA-WA – Key Decisions BIA Cases Matter of S-E-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 579 (BIA 2008) Holding - Salvadoran youth who have been subjected to recruitment efforts by the MS-13 gang and who have rejected or resisted membership in the gang based on their own personal, moral, and religious opposition to the gang’s values and activities do not constitute a social group.” “particular Reasoning Found that particular social groups in this case – were too amorphous and changing to be youths “particular”– who are recruited have ages that are always changing. Also, the number of youths recruited is potentially too large (SLIPPERY SLOPE). Also found that visibility” “social standard not met because youths targeted by gangs are not recognized as a group by society. Matter of E-A-G, 24 I&N Dec. 591 (BIA 2008) Holding The respondent, a young Honduran male, failed to establish that he was a member of a particular social group of resistant to gang membership,” as the “persons evidence failed to establish that members of Honduran society, or even gang members themselves, would perceive those opposed to gang membership as members of a social group. Again relies on the social visibility standard. Because membership in a criminal gang cannot constitute membership in a particular social group, the respondent could not establish that he was a member of a particular social group of persons who are “young perceived to be affiliated with gangs” based on the incorrect perception by others that he is such a gang member. Finally, stated that opposition to gang membership alone does not constitute a political opinion Reasoning In determining that former gang members themselves could not constitute social group, relied on a policy that we will see later: argument affiliation with a criminal “Treating organization as being protected membership in a
Asylum Chat – 1/30/15 Asylum Committee – AILA-WA Key Decisions BIA Cases Matter of S-E-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 579 (BIA 2008) Holding - Salvadoran youth who have been subjected to recruitment efforts by the MS-13 gang and who have rejected or resisted membership in the gang based on their own personal, moral, and religious opposition to the gang’s values and activities do not constitute a “particular social group.” Reasoning – Found that particular social groups in this case were too amorphous and changing to be “particular”– youths who are recruited have ages that are always changing. Also, the number of youths recruited is potentially too large (SLIPPERY SLOPE). Also found that “social visibility” standard not met because youths targeted by gangs are not recognized as a group by society. Matter of E-A-G, 24 I&N Dec. 591 (BIA 2008) Holding The respondent, a young Honduran male, failed to establish that he was a member of a particular social group of “persons resistant to gang membership,” as the evidence failed to establish that members of Honduran society, or even gang members themselves, would perceive those opposed to gang membership as members of a social group. Again relies on the social visibility standard. Because membership in a criminal gang cannot constitute membership in a particular social group, the respondent could not establish that he was a member of a particular social group of “young persons who are perceived to be affiliated with gangs” based on the incorrect perception by others that he is such a gang member. Finally, stated that opposition to gang membership alone does not constitute a political opinion Reasoning In determining that former gang members themselves could not constitute social group, relied on a policy argument that we will see later: “Treating affiliation with a criminal organization as being protected membership in a