• Employers
    • Permanent Visas
      • PERM Labor Certifications
    • Temporary Visas
      • E-3 Visas
      • H-1B Employment
        • H-1B1 Visa
      • L-1 Visas
      • J-1 Visas
      • O-1 Visas
      • TN, Canadian/Mexican
  • Employees
    • Nonimmigrant Visa Applications (Consular)
    • National Interest Waivers
  • Entrepreneurs
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
  • Compliance
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Family & Individuals
    • Marriage
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Naturalization
    • Students
      • STEM OPT Visas
  • About Us
    • Blog
    • Testimonials
    • Attorneys
      • Philip M. Levin, Founder
      • Don L. Pangilinan, Principal
      • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
      • Alexandra Cotroneo, Associate

Levin and Pangilinan PC

U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law

¿Necesitas el sitio web en español?

800.974.2691
Contact Us
  • Employers
    • Permanent Visas
      • PERM Labor Certifications
    • Temporary Visas
      • E-3 Visas
      • H-1B Employment
        • H-1B1 Visa
      • L-1 Visas
      • J-1 Visas
      • O-1 Visas
      • TN, Canadian/Mexican
  • Employees
    • Nonimmigrant Visa Applications (Consular)
    • National Interest Waivers
  • Entrepreneurs
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
  • Compliance
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Family & Individuals
    • Marriage
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Naturalization
    • Students
      • STEM OPT Visas
  • About Us
    • Blog
    • Testimonials
    • Attorneys
      • Philip M. Levin, Founder
      • Don L. Pangilinan, Principal
      • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
      • Alexandra Cotroneo, Associate

BIA Holds That An Asylum Applicant’s Status As A Landowner Does Not Automatically Render Him Or Her A Member Of A Particular Social Group For Purposes Of Asylum And Withholding Of Removal. To Establish A Particular Social Group Based On Landownership, One Must Demonstrate By Evidence In The Record That Members Of The Proposed Group Share An Immutable Characteristic And That The Group Is Defined With Particularity And Is Perceived To Be Socially District In The Society In Question. The Respondent’s Proposed Particular Social Groups – Comprised Of Landowners And Landowners Who Resist Drug Cartels In Guatemala – Are Not Valid Based On The Evidence Of Record.

May 12, 2020 Philip Levin

On February 10, 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed the appeal of a Guatemalan native whose applications for asylum, withholding of removal and CAT relief were denied by the Immigration Judge (IJ), who had granted Respondent’s request for voluntary departure. The grant of voluntary departure was reinstated. 

Respondent entered the U.S. without inspection and, after being placed into removal proceedings, applied for the above-mentioned forms of relief from deportation. After the IJ’s first denial, Respondent filed his first appeal; in turn, the BIA remanded the record for further proceedings at which the IJ accepted additional evidence and testimony. Respondent had testified that he was from El Progreso, Guatemala, where his family operated a farm. Twice in once year, members of a drug cartel approached Respondent and his father and threatened them with death if they did not use their land to grow marijuana for the cartel. About a month after the second encounter, Respondent’s father was shot dead. His godfather had also been similarly threatened by the cartel and killed the year before. The same year Respondent’s father was assassinated, his godfather’s teenage son was fatally shot in front of the child’s grandparents. Thereafter, the cartel appropriated the godfather’s land. Subsequently, Respondent entered the U.S. and his mother and sister relocated to another part of Guatemala where the Board noted, “they lived without incident.” 

On remand, Respondent proposed social groups comprised of: 1) landowners, 2) landowners who resist drug cartels, and 3) members of Respondent’s family. The IJ found that none of the three qualified the applicant for asylum or withholding and concluded that Respondent was ineligible for CAT relief. In the instant appeal, he challenged the IJ’s conclusions, arguing that his applications should have been granted. 

In beginning its analysis, the BIA restated the rule that one seeking asylum or withholding based on membership in a particular social group (PSG) must establish that the group is 1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, 2) defined with particularity, and 3) socially distinct within the society in question. The decision first noted that in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec.211 (BIA 1985), modified on other grounds, Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec.439 (BIA 1987), the Board had indicated that “land ownership” could qualify as “a common immutable characteristic” defining a PSG; however to establish that it is such a characteristic, one must demonstrate that his or her ownership of land is beyond the applicant’s power to change  or is so fundamental to his or her identity or conscience “that it ought not to be required to be changed.” Moreover, even where landownership renders a group immutable, its ultimate validity will depend on whether the particular facts, country and societal conditions, and individual circumstances establish whether the group is discrete or amorphous and whether the society in question considers landowners as a significantly distinct group within the society. Thus, stated the opinion, where landownership is linked with another protected ground, e.g., political opinion, by “exclusively limiting participation in governance and other political activities to landowners”,  landownership “is more likely to have definable boundaries and be viewed by the society in question as a distinct class of persons.” 

However, reiterated the BIA, one’s status as a landowner will not automatically render him or her as a member of a PSG; to be granted asylum or withholding one “must demonstrate by evidence in the record that members of the proposed group share an immutable characteristic and that group is defined with particularity and is perceived to be socially distinct in the society in question.” 

Upholding the IJ’s conclusion that Respondent had failed to demonstrate that his proposed groups are valid, the Board found his PSGs to be amorphous and lack particularity “because they can encompass landowners of varying backgrounds, circumstances, and motivations.” Additionally, Respondent had not identified record evidence demonstrating that his proposed PSGs were perceived as significantly distinct groups in El Progreso; although rural Guatemalan landowners may be vulnerable to theft, coercion or other criminal activities, Respondent did not prove that those in El Progreso, or the cartels themselves, perceived members of the proposed groups as “set apart, or distinct, from other persons within the society in some significant way.” And, added the decision, even if Respondent’s groups were valid, he had failed to confirm the required nexus, “between the harm he fears and his status as a Guatemalan landowner.” In a footnote, the BIA explained that the record had specifically been remanded so that the IJ could evaluate the existence of Respondent’s claimed groups “in accordance with our precedents and to evaluate whether any harm [he] experienced was ‘on account’ of those groups.” Respondent thus had to prove that he or other members of his family had been targeted by the cartel based on their ownership of land in Guatemala. 

Further, the Board noted that here the cartel was looking to exploit vulnerable landowners to further its illicit operations – drug cultivation and distribution. While Respondent’s proposed PSGs necessarily focused on his status as a landowner, the cartel’s actions reflected that its focus was on Respondent’s land, not his status as a landowner. As such, the IJ’s conclusion that Respondent had not experienced past persecution or demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his land ownership in Guatemala was affirmed.  

As to Respondent’s family-as-a-social-group claim, the BIA initially cited to Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019) wherein the Attorney General held that a family-based group will not constitute a PSG unless it is socially distinct in the eyes of its society, not just those of its alleged persecutor, and is defined with sufficient particularity. Because L-E-A found that, in the ordinary case, a nuclear family will not constitute a PSG because “most nuclear families are not inherently socially distinct,” the opinion concluded that Respondent had not shown his own family was socially distinct or “viewed as anything besides a typical nuclear family in Guatemala.” Further, the Board stated that the evidence in this case did not demonstrate that the deaths of Respondent’s father, godfather, or godfather’s son were linked to Respondent, such that they could be considered persecution of Respondent on account of his family membership. Finally, the decision found that the IJ did not clearly err in concluding that the cartel wished to appropriate Respondent’s family’s land so that it could cultivate and distribute drugs and Respondent’s family membership was “tangential and incidental to this motive, and there is no indication that the cartel harbored any particular animosity towards the Respondent and his family.” 

The BIA quickly dismissed the withholding of removal claim, upholding the IJ’s finding that Respondent had failed to prove, “in accordance with applicable circuit precedent,” that it is more likely than not that a valid protected ground was a reason for any persecution he may have experienced. Similarly, the Board agreed with the IJ that Respondent had not established eligibility for CAT protection. He claimed that he will never be safe in Guatemala because he now has title to his family’s land, thus making him vulnerable to harm in perpetuity from those who have taken his land adversely. However, the opinion found this argument “relies on the unestablished premise” that Respondent intends to “hold and exercise his title to his family’s land,” as well as the proposition that his title to the property, in and of itself, makes him a target of the cartel. There is no indication, concluded the decision, that the cartel wishes to locate Respondent, let alone torture him, based on his title to the land. 

The appeal was again dismissed and Respondent permitted to voluntarily depart, without Government expense, within 30 days from the date of this order, subject to the motion to reopen or reconsider and judicial challenge warnings. Matter of E-R-A-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2020). 

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. 

You have questions. We have answers.

Filed Under: Appeal, BIA, Blog, Cancellation of Removal, Court of Appeals

Contact Us

Recent Blog Posts

  • U.S. Visa Interview Waiver Program: Important 2025 Updates
  • New DOS Guidance on Mandating Social Media Review of all F-1, M-1, and J-1 visa applicants and Possible Revocations: What You Need to Know
  • H-1B LOTTERY FY 2026 AND THE RECENT MODERNIZATION RULE 
  • Birthright Citizenship Under Fire: Trump’s Latest Executive Order Explained
  • BIA Holds That Its Prior Holding In Matter Of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022), That An Objection To A Noncompliant Notice To Appear Will Generally Be Considered Timely If Raised Prior To The Close Of Pleadings Is Not A Change In Law, And Thus Matter Of Fernandes Applies Retroactively.

Practice Areas

  • Business Immigration
  • Family Immigration
  • Marriage
  • PERM Labor Certification
  • Hearing & Appeals
  • Deportation, Removal, Asylum
  • I-9/Worksite Enforcement

LEAVE A REVIEW

Leave a Review on Google

        

San Francisco Office
930 Montgomery Street
Suite 502
San Francisco, CA 94133

Silicon Valley Office
5201 Great America Parkway
Suite 320
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Los Angeles Office
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suites 2600 & 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
©2025 Levin and Pangilinan PC. All Rights Reserved.
  • Business Immigration
  • Family Immigration
  • Labor Certification
  • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Hearings & Appeals
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 · XML Sitemap · Sitemap

R-1
TN

The TN nonimmigrant classification allows qualified Canadian and Mexican citizens to enter the U.S. and engage in professional business activities. LPPC will help you navigate through the TN application process by evaluating your eligibility, preparing supporting documentation for your application, and ultimately filing your application. 

B-1

LPPC will guide you through the consular process to receive a B-1 visa for specific short-term business purposes ranging from contract negotiations to seminars and conferences.

O-1

O-1 visas are for persons of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or sports. 

J-1

Administered by the Department of State, the J-1 visa is for students, trainees, academics, researchers, professionals or experts participating in an approved Exchange Visitor program. LPPC will assist you and your sponsor with preparing the necessary paperwork and the consular process so you can begin your program at ease. 

E-1 & E-2

E-1 visas and E-2 visas are for nationals of countries with which the United States has a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation (FCN) or bilateral investment treaty (BIT). If you are a nonimmigrant trader or investor seeking to conduct business operations or develop a new enterprise in the U.S., we will help you file for the appropriate visa. As a recognized expert in this area, Mr. Levin will provide experienced and dependable assistance with E-1 or E-2 visa applications. 

  • E-1: If you are a national of a country that conducts a significant volume of trade with the U.S. (or if you intend to develop trade between the U.S. and your home country) you might be eligible for entry under an E-1 visa. 
  • E-2: The E-2 visa allows investors from treaty countries to enter the U.S. for purposes of directing and developing a business, with all the commitments and risks implicit in entrepreneurial activity. 
L-1

The L-1 visa category is for executives, managers or professionals employed by foreign affiliates of U.S companies. The L-1 visa is divided into two classifications:

  • L-1A Intracompany Transferee Executive or Manager
  • L-1B Intracompany Transferee Specialized Knowledge
H-1B

Many companies in the United States find themselves increasingly dependent on the talent, experience and energy of foreign national workers in professional, technical or specialized occupational fields. These employees typically enter the U.S. on nonimmigrant H-1B visas for “specialty occupations.” 

With extensive experience in business immigration, you can count on LPPC to guide your company or Human Resources department in preparing and filing an H-1B visa petition.

Green Card

Family preservation and reunification is a priority for our firm. Our attorneys have advised and assisted families from all over the world with entry visas, adjustment of status, and other immigration problems. 

  • Immediate Relatives: If you are the spouse, child, or parent of a U.S. citizen, we can help you obtain a green card through an Immediate Relative petition. 
  • Family-Based Preference: If your relative is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, we can assist you with your green card application through one of the family based preference categories.
Fiances

If you are a U.S. citizen and your fiancé/fiancée or spouse is overseas, our office will assist you to navigate the CIS requirements and regulations to have the case approved and then prepare you and your spouse for the interview at the U.S. Embassy. LPPC will also help you find the best ways to resolve any problems you encounter if a waiver is required in your case.

Marriage

Immigration through marriage is a common means of obtaining permanent residence in the U.S.  Since 1991, Philip Levin & Associates has helped hundreds of couples immigrate to the U.S. and build their lives together. 

  • I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status: If you are married to a U.S. citizen, present in the U.S. and eligible to do so, our attorneys will assist you in preparing and filing the necessary I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application in the U.S.
  • Immigrant Visa Consular Processing: If you are married to a U.S. citizen and reside abroad, we will assist you in preparing and filing the IV petition with an Embassy or Consulate-General in your native country. 
  • I-751, Remove Conditions on Residence: If you have been married less than two years at the time your green card was initially approved, our office will help you in the joint petition process to become a permanent resident.