Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Matter of M-E-V-G

Board of Immigration Appeals
26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (2014)


Facts

MEVG (defendant), a native of Honduras, applied for asylum in the United States. MEVG claimed that he had suffered persecution by a Honduran gang because MEVG belonged to a youth group that refused to join gangs. The Immigration Judge denied his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) (plaintiff) affirmed. The Third Circuit granted MEVG’s petition for review, then remanded the case for further consideration of arguments regarding membership in a particular social group. On remand, the Board held that MEVG did not establish persecution “on account of a protected ground” and that he did not show that his proposed social group possessed the required elements of “particularity” and “social visibility.” To establish an asylum claim under § 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, an applicant must demonstrate that he suffered persecution on account of “[…] membership in a particular social group […].” The phrase “membership in a particular social group” is not defined. The Board first interpreted the term “particular social group” in Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211 (1985). There, the Board held that the group in question must share a common, immutable characteristic to be deemed a particular social group. After Acosta, the Board refined the definition to include the concepts of “social visibility” and “particularity.” However, here, the Third Circuit remanded MEVG’s case, ruling that the Board had not articulated a reason for these stated requirements of particularity and social visibility, but nevertheless advised that the Board may add to or alter its definition of “particular social group.”

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Guendelsberger, Board Member)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.