Matter of A-G-

A-G-, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without being inspected in 1982 while El Salvador was at war. During removal proceedings, A-G- was granted voluntary departure but failed to leave the country. Later, A-G- filed a motion to reopen the deportation proceedings so that he could request asylum instead. According to A-G-, he left his country because he did not want to join the Salvadorian army, which had a record of violence. However, A-G- was afraid that if he refused to serve, he would be considered a supporter of the opposition and either tortured or killed. A-G- reported that relatives had been killed by both the Salvadorian army and the guerrilla army. For example, A-G- reported that a cousin had been killed by the Salvadorian army for his support of the opposition, and another relative had been killed by a death squad for giving food to guerilla members. A-G- submitted news articles and reports from private human-rights organizations that noted human-rights violations committed by El Salvador’s army. A-G- asserted that refusing to serve in the army was a political opinion, and he would likely suffer punishment, including being killed by the death squads. Finally, A-G- contended that the actions of the Salvadorian army were denounced by the international community and that he should not be deported while El Salvador was at war. An immigration judge (IJ) denied A-G-’s motion to reopen the deportation proceedings, and on appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remanded for the IJ’s determination of whether A-G- had established a prima facie case for asylum, as was required in order to grant a motion to reopen. Pursuant to § 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the act), establishing a prima facie case for asylum required demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution due to an applicant's race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion. In considering A-G-’s evidence, the IJ denied the motion to reopen once again, and A-G- appealed.