Fourth Circuit Court April 2020 Lopez Ordonez v. Barr

NEXUS & INFANTICIDE

- • Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 164 Cir. 2009): The protected ground can’t be an • Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 164 Cir. 2009): The protected ground can’t be an “incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate” reason for the persecution.
- • Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199, 213 Cir. 2015): Petitioner doesn’t have to provide a “smoking • Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199, 213 Cir. 2015): Petitioner doesn’t have to provide a “smoking gun” re. persecutor’s motives.
- • v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992): There should be some direct or circumstantial • v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992): There should be some direct or circumstantial evidence of the persecutor’s motives.
- • Abdel-Rahman v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 444, 450 Cir. 2007): Political opinion can be actual or only • Abdel-Rahman v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 444, 450 Cir. 2007): Political opinion can be actual or only imputed, so long as applicant can demonstrate that it’s so.
- • M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 312 Cir. 1990) (en banc) superseded by statute on other grounds: • M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 312 Cir. 1990) (en banc) superseded by statute on other grounds: Government conscription is not necessarily persecution. But it can rise to persecution when the government’s military actions are atrocious and are “condemned by the international community as contrary to the basic rules of human conduct.”
- • Barraza Rivera v. INS, 913 F.2d 1443, 1451 Cir. 1990): “There is ample support for the conclusion • Barraza Rivera v. INS, 913 F.2d 1443, 1451 Cir. 1990): “There is ample support for the conclusion that persecution can result from . . . refusing to comply with military orders after induction because they violate standards of human decency.”
- • Ramos-Vasquez v. INS, 57 F.3d 857, 863 Cir. 1995): A person can claim conscientious objection • Ramos-Vasquez v. INS, 57 F.3d 857, 863 Cir. 1995): A person can claim conscientious objection to military service as a political opinion where the service would involve atrocious conduct.
- • v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 241, 249 (4th Cir. 2017): Noting timing of persecution, • v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 241, 249 (4th Cir. 2017): Noting timing of persecution, which escalated after individual expressed political views.

## Discussion:

- • find the BIA erred in determining that Lopez Ordonez did not establish a nexus between his • find the BIA erred in determining that Lopez Ordonez did not establish a nexus between his persecution and political opinion. Lopez Ordonez showed that the G-2, a division of the Guatemalan military, imputed a political opinion to him based on his opposition to its in human conduct and his threats to report that conduct to human rights organizations. Critically, he also demonstrated that the G-2 persecuted him on account of that imputed political opinion.” Lopez Ordonez v. Barr, No. 18-2469, 10 (4th Cir. 2020).

## Commentary:

- • BIA . . . considered his asylum claim because he was a class member to an agreement requiring the • BIA . . . considered his asylum claim because he was a class member to an agreement requiring the government to treat certain pending asylum applications as though they were filed within the one-year (4th deadline.” Lopez Ordonez v. Barr, No. 18-2469, 7 Cir. 2020).
- o sure what “agreement” this is referring to! o sure what “agreement” this is referring to!