Opinion ID: 1198374
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is Urbina-Mejia a member of a particular social group?

Text: In Castellano-Chacon, we defined a `particular social group' as composed of individuals who share a `common, immutable characteristic.' 341 F.3d at 546. We noted that this was consistent with the Board's holding that refuge is restricted to individuals who are either unable by their own actions, or as a matter of conscience should not be required, to avoid persecution. Id. at 547 (quoting Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 233 (BIA 1985)). In that case, we noted that it was possible to conceive of the members of MS-13 as a particular social group under the INA, sharing for example the common immutable characteristic of their past experiences together, their initiation rites, and their status as Spanish-speaking immigrants in the United States. Id. at 549. We held that, while this might have been a conceivable argument, the petitioner had not made it and so we could not consider it. Both the immigration judge and the Board misunderstood and misapplied our holding in Castellano-Chacon. The immigration judge reasoned that, because Urbina-Mejia was not tattooed, he had failed to show that the characteristic which he possesses is so fundamental to his identity that it would be unconscionable for him to change it. ... It is not unconscionable to ask a former gang member to give up his membership in a gang considering the social harm that the gangs have wrought in Honduras and the potential for injury to innocent members of the public in that country. The Board agreed that Urbina-Mejia had not established that he would be harmed on account of his membership in a particular social group because gang membership is not an immutable characteristic so fundamental to his identity that it would be unconscionable for him to change it and his presently expressed opposition to gang activity does not constitute membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The immigration judge and the Board are correct that `[b]eing a member of a gang is not a characteristic that a person cannot change or should not be required to change' provided that he can resign without facing persecution for doing so. Ramos v. Holder, 589 F.3d 426, 429 (7th Cir.2009) (citation omitted) (finding that a former gang member was eligible for withholding of removal should he be found not to have committed a serious nonpolitical crime). However, being a former member of a group is a characteristic impossible to change, except perhaps by rejoining the group. Id. (citing Gatimi v. Holder, 578 F.3d 611, 614 (7th Cir.2009) (holding that a former member of a violent criminal Kenyan faction called the Mungiki was a member of a particular social group, namely former members of Mungiki); Sepulveda v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 770, 771-72 (7th Cir.2006) (holding that former subordinates of the attorney general of Colombia who had information about the insurgents plaguing that nation constituted a particular social group); Koudriachova v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 255, 262-63 (2d Cir. 2007) (former KGB agents); Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028-29 (9th Cir.2000) (former members of the police or military); Velarde v. INS, 140 F.3d 1305, 1311-13 (9th Cir.1998) (former bodyguards of the daughters of the president); Chanco v. INS, 82 F.3d 298, 302-03 (9th Cir.1996) (former military officers); and In re Fuentes, 19 I. & N. Dec. 658, 662 (BIA 1988) (former members of the national police)). We have likewise affirmed a Board finding that being a former member of a group is an immutable characteristic and that mistreatment because of such status could be found to be persecution on account of ... membership in a particular social group. Velasquez-Velasquez v. INS, 53 Fed.Appx. 359, 364 (6th Cir.2002) (holding that being a former soldier constituted an immutable characteristic). As in Ramos and Velasquez, it is impossible for Urbina-Mejia to change his membership in the group of former 18th Street gang members. It is not that he is unwilling to cast off gang membership; indeed, he came to the United States in order to escape the gang. However, once one has left the gang, one is forever a former member of that gang. Additionally, Dr. Valdez, an expert in gang activities, corroborated Urbina-Mejia's testimony [2] that Urbina-Mejia would be recognized by the 18th Street gang and the MS-13 gang as an ex-gang member if he returned to Honduras. He further opined that, based upon his membership in the 18th Street gang, Urbina-Mejia's life would be in danger if he were to return to Honduras. [3] Thus, the immigration judge and the Board erred as a matter of law in finding that Urbina-Mejia was not a part of a particular social group for the purposes of withholding of removal.