Lesly Palma-Ulloa v. Merrick B. Garland, 20-3582

Lesly Palma-Ulloa, a Honduran woman, suffered longstanding domestic abuse by her partner, Henry Avilez Almendarez, and fled to the United States twice with children to escape him.
After her second entry, immigration authorities placed Palma-Ulloa in withholding-only proceedings (because of a prior removal) and her two older children in regular removal proceedings.
Palma-Ulloa sought withholding of removal; her children sought withholding and asylum. They asserted membership in several "particular social groups," including "Honduran women unable to leave a domestic relationship" (mother) and "Honduran children unable to leave a familial relationship" plus "immediate family" (children).
The IJ accepted the mother’s proposed group under Matter of A-R-C-G- but concluded Palma-Ulloa was not a member because she had left the relationship; the IJ rejected the children’s proposed groups.
The Board of Immigration Appeals reversed on the mother’s claim relying on Matter of A-B- and rejected the children’s claims relying on Matter of L-E-A-.
While the petition was pending, the Attorney General vacated both A-B- and L-E-A- and directed the BIA and IJs to follow pre–A-B- precedent; the Sixth Circuit remanded to the BIA to reconsider without relying on the vacated opinions and vacated the BIA decisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "Honduran women unable to leave a domestic relationship" is a cognizable particular social group	Palma-Ulloa: group is cognizable (consistent with Matter of A-R-C-G-)	Government/BIA: group not cognizable under Matter of A-B-	Court vacated BIA decision and remanded so BIA can reconsider without relying on A-B-
Whether children’s groups ("Honduran children unable to leave a familial relationship" and "immediate family") are cognizable	Children: groups are cognizable and support asylum/withholding	Government/BIA: groups not cognizable under Matter of L-E-A-	Court vacated BIA decision and remanded for reconsideration without L-E-A-
Whether Palma-Ulloa’s prior departures from the relationship defeat group membership or entitlement	Palma-Ulloa: prior departures do not necessarily negate group membership or fear	IJ/BIA: factual finding that she left the relationship meant she was not a group member	Court remanded for the BIA to revisit factual and legal determinations in light of governing precedent after vacatur
Whether courts should remand to the BIA when intervening agency decisions arise during judicial review	Petitioners: remand appropriate so BIA can apply new/changed agency guidance	Government: (implicitly) finality of BIA decision might counsel against remand	Court followed precedent favoring remand and allowed BIA to address issues in the first instance; granted petition, vacated BIA decisions, and remanded

Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (2006) (courts should generally permit the agency to address issues in the first instance).
INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (per curiam) (same principle supporting remand to agency).
Paiz-Morales v. Lynch, 795 F.3d 238 (1st Cir. 2015) (remand appropriate when intervening agency action could affect review).
Kanagu v. Holder, 781 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2015) (similar remand practice following new agency guidance).
Monterroso v. Att'y Gen., [citation="476 F. App'x 973"] (3d Cir. 2012) (remand when agency decisions issued after appeal may alter outcome).
Caldera-Herrera v. Lynch, [citation="631 F. App'x 573"] (10th Cir. 2015) (remand to agency after intervening precedent).
Naranjo-Barrajas v. Holder, [citation="356 F. App'x 923"] (9th Cir. 2009) (same).