Silvana Paloka v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15201
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Paloka, a native of Albania, applied for asylum in the U.S. at age 19, asserting persecution based on membership in a particular social group.
- The BIA dismissed her asylum claim, finding her proposed groups were not cognizable and that she was not targeted for her group membership.
- The IJ relied on generalized trafficking risks and concluded Paloka’s groups were too broad or not sufficiently particular.
- The BIA clarified its approach to cognizable groups through M-E-V-G- and W-G-R-, emphasizing social visibility, particularity, and societal perception.
- This court remands to the BIA to reevaluate Paloka’s proposed groups under the new clarifications and to determine if a cognizable group exists, applying a more extended analysis, including a refined 15–25 age subgroup.
- The case is remanded; the court does not decide whether Paloka has proven persecution or nexus at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Paloka’s proposed groups are cognizable under INA §1101(a)(42)(A). | Paloka contends groups based on age/gender are cognizable. | Government argues groups are too broad or not defined with particularity. | Remand to reassess cognizability under new BIA standards. |
| How the BIA’s M-E-V-G- and W-G-R- framework applies to Paloka’s groups. | Framework supports recognizing gender/age-based groups if defined with boundaries. | Baseline criteria require clear particularity and social distinction. | Remand to apply clarified framework and determine suitability of the proposed groups. |
| Whether persecution nexus was shown “on account of” group membership. | Persecution stemmed from group status and trafficking risks. | Persecution tied to general criminal opportunism, not group status. | Remand for reconsideration of nexus after cognizability is resolved. |
| Whether Paloka refined her group during appeal affects cognizability. | Age-15-to-25 refinement should be considered as a specific subclass. | Group evolution during appeal is permissible but must meet criteria. | Remand allows reconsideration of a refined 15–25 subgroup. |
| Is remand appropriate where agency has clarified but not decided on the issue? | Agency should evaluate anew with clarified standards. | Remand is proper to permit agency expertise and initial determination. | Yes, remand to the BIA for redetermination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cece v. Holder, 733 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2013) (cognizable group for trafficking-related persecution if defined and perceived as distinct)
- M-E-V-G-, v. 27 I. & N. Dec. 227, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014) (defines cognizable group: immutable characteristic, particularity, social distinction)
- W-G-R-, v. 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014) (clarifies social distinction and particularity; persecution nexus analysis)
- Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007) (reiterates nexus and persecution standards for social groups)
- Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Attorney General of U.S., 663 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 2011) (agency deference on BIA interpretations of ‘particular social group’)