Minh Nguyen v. William Barr, 983 F.3d 1099

Nguyen, a Vietnamese national admitted as a U.S. lawful permanent resident in 1997, has an extensive criminal record including a drug conviction; Customs flagged him as an applicant for admission when he tried to reenter the U.S. in 2014.
DHS charged Nguyen with inadmissibility for a controlled-substance offense and removal proceedings followed; he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
Nguyen claimed fear of return based on two proposed particular social groups: relatives of soldiers who opposed the communist government, and “known drug users”; he relied in part on a U.S.–Vietnam repatriation agreement that shares deportees’ criminal records and Vietnam’s policy of compulsory drug rehabilitation.
The Immigration Judge granted asylum and withholding, finding Nguyen a member of the cognizable group “known drug users” and concluding he had a well-founded fear of persecution despite ten years’ sobriety.
The Board of Immigration Appeals reversed, holding the proposed group lacked particularity, rejecting the IJ’s well‑founded fear finding for lack of evidence that prior users with old convictions are targeted, and finding the IJ erred in the discretionary-asylum analysis.
The Ninth Circuit denied review: it held Nguyen waived review of the discretionary-asylum claim and affirmed the Board’s conclusion that “known drug users” is not a cognizable particular social group, so it did not reach the well‑founded‑fear question.

Issue	Nguyen's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether “known drug users” is a cognizable particular social group	The group is cognizable; repatriation agreement makes him visible to Vietnamese authorities	The proposed group is amorphous and lacks particularity and definable boundaries	Affirmed: group not cognizable for lack of particularity
Whether Nguyen established a well‑founded fear of future persecution	Fear arises from criminal‑record disclosure and Vietnam’s compulsory rehab policy	No evidence that prior users with old convictions are targeted or that placement equals persecution	Not reached on merits because group not established; Board’s denial stands
Whether denial of asylum as a matter of discretion is reviewable	(Argued below)	Board found IJ failed to weigh criminal record and family ties properly	Waived on appeal: Nguyen did not raise this issue in his opening brief
Proper legal standard and review for particular social group (application of W‑G‑R‑ and M‑E‑V‑G-)	Board misapplied social‑visibility/particularity; urged broader commonsense definition	Board reasonably applied the multi‑factor test (immutability, particularity, social distinction)	BIA’s interpretation is reasonable and was applied correctly; Ninth Circuit defers to that framework

Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) (review limited to Board decisions that adopt their own reasoning; standard of review)
Henriquez‑Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (Board interpretations of “particular social group” are entitled to Chevron deference if reasonable)
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (for asylum, group membership must be at least one central reason for persecution)
Barajas‑Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (for withholding, group membership must be a reason for feared mistreatment)
Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479 (9th Cir. 2020) (social distinction requires society’s recognition of the group)
Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2004) (issues not raised in the opening brief are waived)
Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2007) (IJ factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2010) (questions of law, including cognizability, reviewed de novo)