Cruz v. Garland

The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition by a citizen of Guatemala and his wife and minor son challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of the Guatemalan man’s asylum application. The man claimed that he and his family were members of a “particular social group” (PSG) defined as “climate refugees” that was eligible for asylum. The immigration judge found that the PSG of climate refugees was “too amorphous” to be legally cognizable and did not evince its “social distinction within Guatemalan society”; that the man’s “fear of poor and impoverished conditions” was not sufficient to constitute a “well-founded fear of future persecution”; and that he did not establish a nexus between the asserted PSG and any allegedly persecutory “government action.” The BIA affirmed without an opinion. The First Circuit found that the man did not meet his burden to show that the “climate refugee” PSG was legally cognizable. The court found that “the Guatemalan government’s acknowledgement that some of its citizens have been internally displaced by climate change and natural disasters plainly is not, without more, sufficient evidence to compel the conclusion that such individuals are perceived collectively as a socially distinct group within Guatemala by either the Guatemalan government or Guatemalan society.” Although the petitioner pointed to “journalistic articles” regarding risks posed to the group, including malnutrition, the First Circuit found that he failed to point to evidence suggesting that the issues were “uniquely associated” with climate refugees. The First Circuit also rejected the petitioner’s “fallback contention” that the BIA erred by summarily affirming the immigration judge’s denial.