Reversing the BIA, the Court held that Petitioner's particular social group of "young male family members of [Petitioner's female cousin]" was cognizable under circuit precedent. The Court affirmed the BIA's finding that the Petitioner had not been persecuted on his account of his imputed political opinion where he had defended his female cousin from forcible recruitment by gang members. On the CAT claim, the Court found that the BIA declined to “interact seriously” with the record before it, and thus remand was required.
Date of Decision
Published
