Teresa Perez-Franco v. Attorney General United States, 20-1796

Petitioner Teresa Perez‑Franco and her minor daughter, Guatemalan non‑citizens, applied for asylum and withholding of removal; IJ denied relief and BIA affirmed.
Asylum was dismissed as untimely: Petitioner did not file within one year of entry and invoked the "extraordinary circumstances" exception, arguing her filing within six months of a May 19, 2015 NTA was reasonable.
Petitioner sought withholding of removal based on a proposed particular social group (PSG): "single mothers from Guatemala without male protection." She offered expert testimony about violence against single mothers.
The IJ and BIA found the PSG lacked particularity (and also questioned immutability), and rejected corroboration for an alternative PSG involving family of a former military commissioner.
The Third Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s factual timeliness determinations and otherwise affirmed the BIA on the merits for failure to establish PSG particularity; several claims were deemed waived by counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of asylum application / extraordinary‑circumstances excuse	Perez‑Franco: Filing within six months of NTA was a "reasonable time" after extraordinary circumstance; BIA precedent required finding such a delay reasonable.	Government/BIA: Timeliness and applicability of exceptions are factual/discretionary determinations; BIA evaluated circumstances and found petitioner gave unsatisfactory explanation.	Court: No jurisdiction to review BIA/IJ factual timeliness findings; BIA did not apply a per se rule and acted within its discretion.
Cognizability / particularity of proposed PSG ("single mothers without male protection") for withholding	Perez‑Franco: Expert evidence of violence against single mothers shows group is distinct and deserving of protection.	BIA/IJ: Group is defined by risk of persecution rather than a narrowing characteristic; lacks discrete, definable boundaries (no particularity).	Court: Affirmed BIA — evidence did not compel finding particularity; PSG not cognizable.
Waiver / counsel performance and alternative claims	Perez‑Franco: Raised other claims (Pereira, alternative PSG, CAT) on appeal generally.	BIA/Gov: Counsel failed to brief or preserve those issues; many claims waived; counsel has obligation to provide effective advocacy.	Court: Several claims were waived; emphasized counsel’s duties and standards for ineffective assistance but denied petition on merits.

Jarbough v. Att'y Gen., 483 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2007) (factual timeliness determinations are not reviewable by court)
Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 627 (3d Cir. 2006) (jurisdictional limits on reviewing discretionary factual findings)
Radiowala v. Att'y Gen., 930 F.3d 577 (3d Cir. 2019) (particularity requirement for PSGs)
S.E.R.L. v. Att'y Gen., 894 F.3d 535 (3d Cir. 2018) (PSG must have narrowing characteristic other than risk of persecution)
Escobar v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2005) (PSG must share a characteristic that gives discrete membership)
Kang v. Att'y Gen., 611 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2010) (standard for reversing BIA under "compels a different result")
Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (defective NTA and jurisdictional implications)
Guadalupe v. Att'y Gen., 951 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2020) (application of Pereira and related timeliness questions)
Fadiga v. Att'y Gen., 488 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2007) (standards and procedural requirements for ineffective assistance claims in removal proceedings)
Saravia v. Att'y Gen., 905 F.3d 729 (3d Cir. 2018) (corroboration analysis and burdens)
Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2001) (corroboration and evidence standards in asylum cases)