{
  "id": "R43716",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R43716",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 434056,
      "date": "2014-09-05",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T22:53:55.452194",
      "title": "Asylum and Gang Violence: Legal Overview",
      "summary": "The recent increase in the number of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) apprehended at the border between Mexico and the United States has raised questions about the role that gang-related violence in Central America may play in determining whether such children are eligible for refugee status and asylum. Only aliens who are \u201crefugees,\u201d as that term is defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), qualify for potential refugee status or asylum (two forms of discretionary relief that could enable UACs to enter or remain in the United States). \nThe INA\u2019s definition, in turn, generally encompasses individuals outside their home country who are unable or unwilling to return to that country because of \u201cpersecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.\u201d However, key terms within this definition\u2014including persecution and particular social group\u2014are not defined by statute or regulation. Instead, they have been construed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the highest administrative tribunal for interpreting and applying immigration law, through a process of case-by-case adjudication, with the federal courts generally deferring to the BIA\u2019s interpretation insofar as it is based on a \u201cpermissible construction\u201d of the INA. These cases center upon eligibility for asylum, because denials of applications for refugee status cannot be appealed. Denials of asylum by immigration judges in the course of formal removal proceedings, in contrast, may be appealed to the BIA and the federal courts of appeals.\nPersecution has been construed to mean the infliction of harm by the government, or an entity the government is unable or unwilling to control, \u201cupon persons who differ in a way regarded as offensive ..., in a manner condemned by civilized governments.\u201d A showing of past persecution establishes a rebuttable presumption that the alien has a well-founded fear of future persecution. Otherwise, aliens must prove they subjectively fear persecution, and there is a \u201creasonable possibility\u201d they would suffer persecution if returned to their home country. Such a \u201creasonable possibility\u201d can exist when there is less than a 50% chance of the occurrence taking place. This persecution must also be \u201con account of\u201d a protected ground (e.g., race). The REAL ID Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13) amended the INA to require that a protected ground \u201cwas or will be at least one central reason\u201d for the persecution. However, central reason has been construed to mean a reason that is more than \u201cincidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason,\u201d not as the only or primary reason. Most protected grounds (i.e., race, religion, nationality, political opinion) are fairly straightforward in their definition, if not in their application in specific cases. Particular social group, however, has been construed in various ways by the BIA over the years. \nWhen considered by the BIA or appellate courts in light of how the INA\u2019s definition of refugee is construed, claims to asylum based on gang-related violence frequently (although not inevitably) fail. In some cases, this is because the harm experienced or feared by the alien is seen not as persecution, but as generalized lawlessness or criminal activity. In other cases, persecution has been found to be lacking because governmental ineffectiveness in controlling the gangs is distinguished from inability or unwillingness to control them. In yet other cases, any persecution that is found is seen as lacking the requisite connection to a protected ground, and instead arising from activities \u201ctypical\u201d to gangs, such as extortion and recruitment of new members. The particular social group articulated by the alien (e.g., former gang members, recruits) may also been seen as lacking a \u201ccommon, immutable characteristic,\u201d social visibility (now, social distinction), or particularity.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43716",
          "sha1": "650f7f33ecdd968053532d23fec42080a0a2c3b4",
          "filename": "files/20140905_R43716_650f7f33ecdd968053532d23fec42080a0a2c3b4.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43716",
          "sha1": "a01610e98101e5c76874dd5efc39005a24c8ec3a",
          "filename": "files/20140905_R43716_a01610e98101e5c76874dd5efc39005a24c8ec3a.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}