In re A.B.

27 Citing cases

  1. Tornes v. Garland

    993 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2021)   Cited 42 times
    In Rodriguez Tornes, 993 F.3d at 751, we quoted a passage from the Attorney General's opinion in Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 199, 208 (A.G. 2021), stating that "[t]o establish the necessary nexus, the protected ground: (1) must be a but-for cause of the wrongdoer's act; and (2) must play more than a minor role."

    The Acting Attorney General recently agreed that our nexus standard is the correct one. "To establish the necessary nexus, the protected ground: (1) must be a but-for cause of the wrongdoer's act; and (2) must play more than a minor role—in other words, it cannot be incidental or tangential to another reason for the act." Matter of A-B- , 28 I. & N. Dec. 199, 208 (A.G. 2021) (" Matter of A-B- II "). That test is substantively indistinguishable from our own. Under Parussimova , Petitioner must first show that "the persecutor would not have harmed [her] if such motive did not exist," 555 F.3d at 741, that is, but-for cause, see But-for Cause , Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) ("The cause without which the event could not have occurred.").

  2. Yessenia Jaco v. Garland

    No. 20-60081 (5th Cir. Oct. 27, 2021)

    The Attorney General issued A-B-II to clarify questions arising from A-B-I. Matter of A-B, 28 I. & N. Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021) (A-B-II).

  3. Jaco v. Garland

    16 F.4th 1169 (5th Cir. 2021)   Cited 103 times
    Holding "Honduran women unable to leave their relationships" was not cognizable because it was defined by the harm suffered and the applicant had failed to show that Honduran society perceived such women as a distinct group within society

    The Attorney General issued A-B-II to clarify questions arising from A-B-I. Matter of A-B , 28 I. & N. Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021) (A-B-II ). A.

  4. Avila v. Attorney Gen.

    82 F.4th 250 (3d Cir. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    27 I. & N. Dec. at 320. Following that decision, the Attorney General issued Matter of A-B, 28 I. & N. Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021) (A-B-II), in which the Board "reviewed a subsequent Board decision in the same case 'to provide additional guidance' on recurring issues in asylum cases involving 'applicants who claim persecution by non-governmental actors on account of the applicant's membership in a particular social group.' " A-B-III, 28 I. & N. Dec. at 308 (quoting A-B-II, 28 I. & N. Dec. at 200).

  5. Murillo-Oliva v. Garland

    No. 21-3062 (6th Cir. Oct. 26, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    The second vacatur dealt with PSGs based on non-governmental conduct. In Matter of A-B-, 27 I. &N. Dec. 316 (AG 2018) (A-B- I), and Matter of A-B-, 28 I. &N. Dec. 199 (AG 2021) (A-B- II), Attorney General Sessions and subsequently Acting Attorney General Rosen reviewed a BIA decision concerning a proposed PSG of "Salvadoran women who are unable to leave their domestic relationships where they have children in common with their partners." A-B- I overruled the BIA's earlier decision in Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. &N. Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), which had recognized as a PSG "married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship."

  6. Deras-Pena v. Garland

    No. 21-9541 (10th Cir. Jul. 21, 2021)

    Per Curiam This matter is before the court on the Government's Unopposed Motion toRemand, by which it requests that this court remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") for further consideration of Petitioners' claims, in light of the Attorney General's vacatur of Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021). SeeMatter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021).

  7. Juarez-Espana v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

    No. 22-14340 (11th Cir. Dec. 10, 2024)

    Although the Attorney General argues that we should affirm on other grounds, we believe the more prudent course is to remand for additional proceedings. We note that the IJ did not have the benefit of Matter of A-B-, 28 I. &N. Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021), which vacated Matter of A-B-, 27 I. &N. Dec. 318 (A.G. 2018) (A-B- I) and Matter of A-B-, 28 I. &N. Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021) (A-B- II). There, the BIA addressed "the requirements that must be met to establish that an applicant has suffered persecution on account of membership in a particular social group [PSG]."

  8. Ramos-Gutierrez v. Garland

    110 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024)   Cited 2 times

    The Attorney General issued two Matter of A-B- decisions: Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) ("A-B-I") and Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021) ("A-B-II"). The IJ cited A-B-I and did not cite A-B-II.

  9. Manzano v. Garland

    104 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2024)   Cited 17 times

    The Government defends this reasoning by relying on language in one of our prior opinions that, if taken out of context, could be read to suggest that but-for cause is always necessary to meet the "one central reason" standard. In Rodriguez Tornes, 993 F.3d at 751, we quoted a passage from the Attorney General's opinion in Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 199, 208 (A.G. 2021), stating that "[t]o establish the necessary nexus, the protected ground: (1) must be a but-for cause of the wrongdoer's act; and (2) must play more than a minor role." Although we said in Rodriguez Tornes that the test from Matter of A-B- was "indistinguishable from our own," it is clear from the context that we were simply addressing the test applicable to one way of meeting the nexus standard in a mixed-motive asylum case.

  10. Edwards v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

    97 F.4th 725 (11th Cir. 2024)   Cited 8 times

    Indeed, between the last two administrations alone, there have been at least five vacaturs of prior precedential decisions by the BIA or the Attorney General—many of those decisions themselves vacaturs of even earlier precedential decisions. See, e.g., Thomas, 27 I & N Dec. at 674, 684-85 (overturning longstanding BIA precedent regarding the applicability of state court orders altering or amending a sentence to immigration proceedings); Matter of M-S-, 27 I & N Dec. 509 (A.G. 2019) (overruling Matter of X-K-, 23 I & N Dec. 731 (BIA 2005), which allowed asylum-seekers with a positive credible fear determination for persecution or torture to be eligible for a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge); Matter of A-B-, 28 I & N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021) (vacating Matter of A-B-, 28 I & N Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021) (restricting asylum claims based on domestic or gang violence), and Matter of A-B-, 27 I & N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) (itself overruling Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I & N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014) (recognizing domestic violence as a basis for asylum)); Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I & N Dec. 351 (A.G. 2021) (vacating Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I & N Dec. 84 (A.G. 2020), and directing immigration judges to return to the "longstanding review processes" that the previous Attorney General prohibited); Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I & N Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021) (vacating Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I & N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019) (reversing BIA findings and abrogating previous training guidance to immigration officers that a family may constitute a particular social group consistent with existing case law), and instructing immigration judges to revert to the "preexisting state of affairs")); Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I & N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021) (vacating Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I & N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018)). Even when not expressly vacated