Corpeno-Romero v. Garland

On October 22, 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of Candelaria Corpeno-Romero and her son, Javi, deciding they had experienced persecution. The case focused on threats Javi received from the M-18 gang, which had previously killed his father. The court highlighted that threats alone can count as past persecution when they are so severe that they cause significant suffering.

In this case, Javi’s PTSD diagnosis, caused by the gang’s threats, was key evidence. The court recognized that emotional and psychological harm, backed by witness accounts and expert opinions, can show past persecution. They stressed the importance of considering how threats uniquely impact young people. This decision shows a best practice that good advocates have long known, namely that it is best to use psychological assessments and expert reports to strengthen asylum cases.

Aleman-Belloso v. Garland

On November 13, 2024, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)’s denial of asylum for Mr. Aleman-Belloso. Aleman, a lay minister in El Salvador, had been threatened and tortured by the FMLN political party for refusing to use his church role to influence elections. The court found the BIA wrongfully dismissed the connection between Aleman’s persecution and his political stance against the FMLN.

The court also rejected the BIA’s claim that Aleman’s social group, “influential lay ministers,” was invalid. They ruled that the group wasn’t just defined by the harm he faced, so it could be valid. Additionally, the court said the BIA failed to fully consider evidence showing the government’s role in, or tolerance (acquiescence) of, Aleman’s previous torture. Even though the FMLN had lost local elections, they still held political power, which should have been taken into account.

This ruling broadens the definition of political opinions in asylum cases, allowing applicants to argue political persecution even when it’s not directly tied to the current government.