Sixth Circuit finds that "Honduran Rural Landownership" is Immutable Characteristic, Single Mothers Living Without Male Protection are Socially Distinct,

The Sixth Circuit has issued a decision with a number of favorable findings related to particular social groups in the context of gang persecution in Honduras. First, they found that “Honduran land ownership” is a characteristic so fundamental to the identities of the group members that it is immutable. Second, they found that “single mothers living without male protection” are socially distinct, citing a statement by a deputy commander in the Honduran police that such women are particularly vulnerable within society.

The full text of Turcios-Flores v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0094p-06.pdf

Ninth Circuit Remands Asylum Claimed Based on Family and Land Ownership Particular Social Groups

In a case in which the agency assumed that family and landownership could serve as particular social groups for asylum purposes, the Ninth Circuit reversed the agency’s finding that these social groups were not one central reason for the harm the applicant suffered. The court noted that the agency found that both land ownership and family ties motivated the persecutors, and thus, the nexus analysis was legally erroneous.

“Garcia or members of her family similarly have experienced murder, specific death threats, forcible taking of property, attempted conscription, and retaliation for failed conscription. Furthermore, the timing of the persecution and statements by the persecutor may constitute circumstantial evidence of motive. The cartel in part targeted Garcia’s husband to obtain his property, but Garcia’s husband was still killed even after he had turned over the property deed, which suggests the cartel may have targeted him for reasons beyond the possibility of stealing his property. Beyond that, the cartel then sought out Garcia at her husband’s funeral, a uniquely family affair, threatening her so that she would remain silent about his death. The cartel sought out Garcia once again after she helped her son escape to the United States to avoid the Templars’ recruitment efforts. In this coercive effort, the Templars forced her from her home and took her property. Parada indicates that such sweeping retaliation towards a family unit over time can demonstrate a kind of animus distinct from purely personal retribution. This kind of targeting is sufficient to demonstrate nexus if the petitioner shows via uncontradicted testimony that persecutors specifically sought out the particular social group’ of his family.”

The full text of Naranjo Garcia v. Wilkinson can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/02/18/19-72803.pdf

BIA Addresses Landowners as a PSG

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has determined that an applicant’s status as a landowner does not automatically render that alien a member of a particular social group for purposes of asylum and withholding of removal. Instead, the applicant must show that landowners are socially distinct and particularized within the society in question. As an example, “where the particular facts of a case indicate that landownership is linked with another protected ground—for example, political opinion, by exclusively limiting participation in governance and other political activities to landowners—a group of landowners is more likely to have definable boundaries and be viewed by the society in question as a distinct class of persons. The same is true for a group of landowners who pose a threat to a cartel and its interests, given the group’s social prominence or significance, political or otherwise.”

Contradictorily, the BIA then determined that cartels persecuting landowners because they want their land does not demonstrate the requisite nexus to a protected ground. “The country conditions evidence reflects that cartels engage in criminal activity in Guatemala based on their desire to increase their revenue, power, and territorial control. The criminal activity at issue in this case is drug cultivation and distribution, rendering vulnerable those, like the respondent, who have a resource—in this case, land—that the cartels wish to exploit in order to benefit their operations. Such circumstances are not substantially different from a situation where a criminal is motivated by the theft of desired goods. It is well settled, however, that such a situation does not qualify as persecution on account of a particular social group.”

“The respondent’s proposed social groups necessarily focus on his status as a landowner. But the cartel’s actions reflect that its focus was on the respondent’s land itself, not his landowner status.” It is completely unclear how you would demonstrate a persecutor’s desire to overcome a person’s characteristic as a landowner without demonstrating that the persecutor has some desire for the landowner’s land.

The full text of Matter of E-R-A-L- can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1247176/download