Antonio v. Garland

To satisfy the nexus requirement the defendant must show that he/she was persecuted “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); Fon v. Garland, 34 F.4th 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2022).

Defendant appealed a denial of her claim of asylum. Defendant assigned error to the immigration judge’s (IJ) conclusion that Defendant did not belong to a cognizable particular social group when IJ found that the “style of her dress” is not an immutable characteristic and that the particular social group Defendant was claiming to belong to was “too amorphous.” On appeal, Defendant argued that she satisfied the nexus requirement for asylum because she belonged to a particular social group: “women in Guatemala who are perceived to be lesbian.” She claimed that she belonged to this group because people believed that because she “dressed like a man” she was a lesbian and she became a target for persecution because of that belief. To satisfy the nexus requirement the defendant must show that he/she was persecuted “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see Fon v. Garland, 34 F.4th 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2022). The Court found that the IJ erred in the perception of the social group and found that the group she belonged to was “women in Guatemala who are perceived to be lesbian.” In regards to a person's sexual orientation, it could be determined that the person belonged to that social group whether it was their actual or perceived sexual orientation. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1064 (9th Cir. 2013). Review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.