Brief case changing intimidating therapy unchangeable
and domestic violence claims to the definition of “refugee” be addressed by articulating broadly applicable principles to guide adjudicators in applying the refugee definition and other statutory and regulatory provisions generally.
The Department has tentatively concluded that this approach would be more useful than simply announcing a categorical rule that a victim of domestic violence is or can be a refugee on account of that experience or fear, or that persons presenting such claims may be found eligib le for relief or granted relief as a matter of discretion in certain specified circumstances. A showing of past persecution is also strongly indicative of the possibility of future harm. government to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a refugee no longer has a well-founded fear of future persecution.
For example, to some commenters, the presumption of internal relocation may seem less warranted in cases involving non-government actors, or especially in those cases involving individual non-government actors, for which there may be more reason to believe that the victim could relocate.
Asylum and withholding cases are typically highly fact specific. The final rule on asylum procedures published in conjunction with this rule broadens the evidence with which the government can rebut the presumption of well-founded fear.
In fact, the past experience must be the reason the persecutor inflicted or is inclined to inflict the persecution on the applicant.
Finally, the proposed language in § 208.15(C)(3) provides a non-exclusive list of additional factors that may be considered in determining whether a particular social group exists.
The Ninth Circuit clarified the significance of these factors in the recent case of , 21 I. To ensure uniform and fair administrative adjudications of particular social group asylum claims, this rule clarifies that the Department views the .
In that case, the Board found it highly significant for “particular social group” analysis that the applicant had not shown that the group she asserted “is a group that is recognized and understood to be a societal faction, or is otherwise a recognized segment of the population, within Guatemala,” or that “the victims of spouse abuse view themselves as members of this group.” . This, of course, could be an important inquiry in asylum and withholding cases.