• Hours & Info

    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
  • Past Blog Posts

  • https://api.whatsapp.com/send?phone=13104885414

Can she apply for this kind of asylum?

Answer: In this case, there is actually an unpublished case that allows this to go forward. However, even without this case, it is possible. You will have to define the social group differently. In this case, I can see some group similarly referencing women that are being beaten, but are in ‘common law’ marriages and/or who have kids that have suffered, etc.

Question: What if my country has laws against domestic violence? Will I not be able to apply?

Appeal Asylum

Asylum meaning

Asylum agreements

Asylum Immigration Attorney

Question: What if I know somebody in question is not married, but still being beaten by her husband and has escaped to the U.S. Can she apply for this kind of asylum?

Answer: In this case, there is actually an unpublished case that allows this to go forward. However, even without this case, it is possible. You will have to define the social group differently. In this case, I can see some group similarly referencing women that are being beaten, but are in ‘common law’ marriages and/or who have kids that have suffered, etc.

Question: What if my country has laws against domestic violence? Will I not be able to apply?

My husband is beating me. You can apply for gender based asylum.

“My Husband beat me”. Now it is possible to apply for Asylum.

Question: My husband beat me and I was afraid for my life, so I escaped to the United States. Can I apply for something so I do not have to go back to my home country?

Answer: Yes, it may be possible to apply for gender based asylum. This is not your normal ‘political’ asylum, but rather, one based on ‘gender based immigration. This would be considered a social group.

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/appeal-asylum/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/asylum/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/asylum-applicants/

https://californiaimmigration.us/asylum/

The Council Files Lawsuit Challenging CBP’s Unlawful Practice of Turning Away Asylum Seekers

The American Immigration Council, along with the Center for Constitutional Rights and Latham and Watkins, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) unlawful practice of turning away asylum seekers who present themselves at ports of entry along the U.S. border with Mexico. The individual plaintiffs endured arduous journeys to the U.S. border, and their experiences demonstrate that CBP uses a variety of tactics to deny bona fide asylum seekers the opportunity to pursue their claims.

Court Finds Nicaraguan Petitioner Did Not Make a Misrepresentation on His Adjustment Application

The Eleventh Circuit granted the petition for review, finding that because the petitioner had not been confined in a prison but rather had been detained in a rebel-controlled trailer in the jungle, he did not willfully make a material misrepresentation on his application to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident when he answered “no” to Question 17 on his application, and thus he was not removable under INA §237(a)(2)(A)(ii).

BIA Says Asylum Grantee Who Adjusts to LPR Status Under INA §209(b) Terminates His or Her Asylee Status

Clarifying Matter of C-J-H-, the BIA held that a noncitizen who adjusts status under INA §209(b) changes his or her status from that of a noncitizen granted asylum to that of a noncitizen lawfully admitted for permanent residence, thereby terminating his or her asylee status. The BIA further held that the restrictions on removal in INA §208(c)(1)(A) do not apply to a noncitizen granted asylum whose status is adjusted to that of a noncitizen lawfully admitted for permanent residence pursuant to INA §209(b).

BIA Says Noncitizens Who Assist in Persecution Need Not Have a Persecutory Motive to Be Subject to the Persecutor Bar

In a precedent decision issued today, the BIA held that the persecutor bar in INA §241(b)(3)(B)(i) applies to a noncitizen who assists or otherwise participates in the persecution of an individual because of that person’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, without regard to the noncitizen’s personal motivation for assisting or participating in the persecution. The court found that the persecutor bar applied to the Salvadoran respondent because, regardless of his own motives, he assisted in the persecution of an individual because of the individual’s political opinion. Accordingly, the court concluded that the respondent failed to establish that he was eligible for special rule cancellation of removal under NACARA.

Eligibility for asylum

The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that the Guatemalan petitioner had not demonstrated that the record compelled the finding that his subjective fear of persecution was objectively reasonable. The court thus found that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and BIA’s determination that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum.

Refugees/Asylee

Asylum

Asylee relative petitions

How to apply for political asylum

8th Circuit rules against asylee

The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that the Guatemalan petitioner had not demonstrated that the record compelled the finding that his subjective fear of persecution was objectively reasonable. The court thus found that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and BIA’s determination that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum.

Court Reverses Denial of Asylum to Homosexual Petitioner from Mexico

The en banc Ninth Circuit reversed the BIA’s denial of asylum to a homosexual citizen of Mexico, finding that the petitioner had shown that Mexican officials were unable or unwilling to protect him from harm by private individuals due to his sexual orientation, and thus that he had established past persecution. The court also concluded that the petitioner was entitled to a presumption of future persecution, and remanded for the BIA to consider whether that presumption was rebutted, and also to consider the petitioner’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT protection, taking into account new evidence of the petitioner’s HIV diagnosis.