Decision date: 2021-12-10

Holding that the BIA erred when it determined that the proposed particular social group of “witnesses to a murder in El Salvador” did not meet the particularity requirement because it failed to acknowledge that this group was narrower than "witnesses to a crime” and erroneously based its ruling on the the fact that the groups could further be divided into smaller subgroups, which is not dispositive of particularity. Judge Wynn's concurrence states that he finds that “witnesses to a murder in El Salvador” is particular while Judge Wilkinson's dissent determines that the proposed group lacks particularity.

Publication Status: Unpublished

Case judge: Floyd, Wilkinson, Wynn

Decision: Escobar Gomez v. Garland, No. 20-1654, 2021 WL 5860746 (4th Cir. Dec. 10, 2021)