ILNews

Judge: Look closer at claim of being part of a persecuted social group

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In granting a petition for review of a denial of an asylum request, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge David Hamilton believes the Board of Immigration Appeals applied too narrow of a concept of a “social group.”

Doris Martinez-Buendia fled Colombia in 2005 and applied for asylum on the ground that she was being persecuted by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) because of her anti-FARC political position and her involvement with the social group “Health Brigades.” The group provided health care to rural communities. In demanding she give public credit to FARC for the health-care work, it threatened her in letters and phone calls. She refused. Her sister was kidnapped by FARC as well as her brother-in-law; the latter died in FARC’s custody.

When she was delivering supplies to a school, a FARC member held a gun to Martinez-Buendia’s head and threatened that if she didn’t give FARC credit for the Health Brigades, they would do far worse to her than they did to her sister, who escaped captivity.

An immigration judge denied her application, which the BIA affirmed on the ground that Martinez-Buendia hadn’t established the past persecution she suffered was on account of her political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

The 7th Circuit reversed that decision in Doris Martinez-Buendia v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 09-3792, finding ample evidence Martinez-Buendia suffered the persecution because of her political beliefs. She refused to align with FARC because of her political views that FARC harmed a lot of Colombia and threatened democracy. There’s also evidence FARC viewed members of the Health Brigades as political opponents.

Because the judges found she was persecuted based on political beliefs, the majority didn’t address the idea she was persecuted on account of her membership in a social group. But Judge Hamilton addressed the idea in his six-page concurring opinion.

“I write separately to note that I believe the Board of Immigration Appeals also applied too narrow a concept of a ‘social group’ when evaluating petitioner’s leadership in the brigadas de salud (Health Brigades) in Colombia,” he wrote. “If we were not ordering the Board to grant refugee status to petitioner based on political persecution, I would order a remand to the Board for further development and consideration of the social group issue.”

The BIA erred in not recognizing that the statutory definition can reach a social group defined by its activities, at least where the persecution is based on those activities. He also wrote the BIA failed to consider the extent to which Martinez-Buendia was acting as a matter of conscience when she acted so as “to draw the attention and wrath of the FARC.”

“In sum, the facts and law relevant to petitioner’s claim for refugee status as a member of a persecuted social group deserved closer consideration. Future petitioners may offer evidence that they joined groups like the Health Brigades as a matter of conscience and that they have been persecuted, or that they face future persecution, on account of their membership in and work on behalf of the Health Brigades,” he wrote. “They should not be denied asylum simply because that membership may appear more fluid than membership in a racial, ethnic, or religious group, or because their involvement is the result of secular ethical values instead of religious faith.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT