The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D claims that he suffered past persecution and has a well-founded fear of future persecution in his native Honduras because members of the Mara Salvatrucha gang beat him, kidnaped and assaulted him and his family while they were traveling in Guatemala, and threatened to kill him if he did not join the gang. D testified that the gang members would shoot at him and throw rocks and spears at him about two to three times per week. D claims he was persecuted for being a member of Honduran youth who have been actively recruited by gangs but who have refused to join because they oppose the gangs. The Judge denied D's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The BIA summarily affirmed the Judge. The Third Circuit granted D's petition for review and remanded the case for further consideration of his arguments regarding his membership in a particular social group. On remand, BIA issued a decision that again denied D’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. D did not establish past persecution 'on account of a protected ground.' D did not show that his proposed particular social group possessed the required elements of 'particularity' and 'social visibility.' The Third Circuit found that our requirement that a particular social group must possess the elements of 'particularity' and 'social visibility' is inconsistent with prior Board decisions, that we have not announced a 'principled reason' for our adoption of that inconsistent requirement, and that our interpretation is not entitled to deference under Chevron. The case was remanded again to BIA.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.