I. THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE DID NOT ERROR IN GRANTING THE RESPONDENT’S APPLICATION FOR ASYLUM.
The Honorable Immigration Judge did not error as a matter of law in concluding that the respondent was a member of the particular social group- a group of family members who resisted narco-trafficker’s demands. When making a credibility finding, an IJ considers the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, and may base the determinations on: the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witnesses, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witnesses’ account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the …show more content…
Holder, 520 Fed. Appx. 528 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court of Appeals held that, in seeking asylum based on persecution that petitioner allegedly suffered in the past due to her membership in a specific social group, i.e., her family, alien did not have to show that another family member was persecuted, but needed only to show only that she herself was persecuted because of her status as a family member. Id. Likewise, in Mgoian v. INS, 184 F.3d 1029 ( 9th Cir 1999), the court held that a “particular situated group” implies a collection of people closely affiliated with each other, which can include a social group consisting of the immediate members of a certain family. In the present case, the Honorable Immigration Judge found that the respondent did fit in to a particular group of persons who own farmland in Guatemala, who resisted nerco- trafficker’s demands. Even if the Honorable Immigration Judge found that the Respondent did not qualify as a landowner, the Respondent does fit into a particular social group, that group being her family. The respondent may not be a direct landowner, but she is an immediate family member of farmland owners, who actively participates in the family business of …show more content…
To achieve that benchmark, an asylum applicant must show that he genuinely fears persecution were he to be repatriated and that his fear has an objectively reasonable basis. His or her credible testimony may alone satisfy the subjective component of the test. Villafanca v. Lynch, 797 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2015). An objectively reasonable fear of future persecution exists if a reasonable person in the petitioner’s circumstances would fear persecution based on a statutorily protected grounds. Id at
The Honorable Immigration Judge did not error as a matter of law in concluding that the respondent was a member of the particular social group- a group of family members who resisted narco-trafficker’s demands. When making a credibility finding, an IJ considers the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, and may base the determinations on: the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witnesses, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witnesses’ account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the …show more content…
Holder, 520 Fed. Appx. 528 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court of Appeals held that, in seeking asylum based on persecution that petitioner allegedly suffered in the past due to her membership in a specific social group, i.e., her family, alien did not have to show that another family member was persecuted, but needed only to show only that she herself was persecuted because of her status as a family member. Id. Likewise, in Mgoian v. INS, 184 F.3d 1029 ( 9th Cir 1999), the court held that a “particular situated group” implies a collection of people closely affiliated with each other, which can include a social group consisting of the immediate members of a certain family. In the present case, the Honorable Immigration Judge found that the respondent did fit in to a particular group of persons who own farmland in Guatemala, who resisted nerco- trafficker’s demands. Even if the Honorable Immigration Judge found that the Respondent did not qualify as a landowner, the Respondent does fit into a particular social group, that group being her family. The respondent may not be a direct landowner, but she is an immediate family member of farmland owners, who actively participates in the family business of …show more content…
To achieve that benchmark, an asylum applicant must show that he genuinely fears persecution were he to be repatriated and that his fear has an objectively reasonable basis. His or her credible testimony may alone satisfy the subjective component of the test. Villafanca v. Lynch, 797 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2015). An objectively reasonable fear of future persecution exists if a reasonable person in the petitioner’s circumstances would fear persecution based on a statutorily protected grounds. Id at