Boj Xum v. Holder, Jr.

Filing 920110131

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'Even if we were to consider this claim, the Board\'s\
conclusion that gang members target anyone they believe can provide\
them with money or valuables is well-supported by the record. As\
such, its conclusion that Perez would not be targeted "on account\
of" his membership in a group is unassailable. See Caal-Tiul v.\
Holder, 582 F.3d 92, 95 (1st Cir. 2009) ("[S]ome social, gender,\
and economic groupings are almost always more vulnerable to crime\
and predation. This does not by itself amount to persecution . .\
. on one of the specific grounds required by the statute.")\
'

var WPFootnote2 = 'In July 2009, a few months after the BIA decision in this\
matter, the BIA in Matter of S-E-G granted the parties\' joint\
motion to reopen and remand the matter so that the IJ could\
administratively close the proceedings. The petitioners suggest\
that this undermines the BIA\'s reliance on Matter of S-E-G, but\
they have provided us with no indication that the BIA has\
reconsidered the precedential value of Matter of S-E-G. Moreover,\
in addition to our decision in Larios, several other circuits have\
continued to apply Matter of S-E-G to factual scenarios similar to\
those presented in this case. See, e.g., Lizama v. Holder, No. 09-2027, 2011 WL 149874 at *6 (4th Cir. Jan. 19, 2011); Bonilla-Morales v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1132, 1137 (6th Cir. 2010) (dicta);\
Lushaj v. Holder, 380 Fed. Appx. 41, 43 (2nd Cir. 2010).\
'

var WPFootnote3 = 'The BIA addressed a "returning expatriate" claim similar to \
Perez\'s. As that issue has not been raised on appeal, it is\
waived.\
'

var WPFootnote4 = 'Both petitioners advance an unexhausted challenge to the\
BIA\'s requirement that a particular social group be socially\
visible. We cannot entertain such an unexhausted challenge, see\
Sunoto v. Gonzales, 504 F.3d 56, 59 (1st Cir. 2007).\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "