Jose Orellana-Monson v. Eric Holder, Jr.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “case-by-case adjudication is permissible and that such adjudication does not necessarily follow a straight path”
• concluding that the proposed group—”men who were recruited but refused to join Mara 18”—lacked particularity because it was “too amorphous since it encompasses a wide swath of society crossing many political orientations, lifestyles, and identifying factors”
• concluding a similar group—men who were recruited but refused to join Mara 18— lacked particularity and social distinction
• noting that under Chevron step two, an agency interpretation “is binding as long as it is a permissible construction of the statute.” (internal quotations omitted)
• observing that this court has declined to recognized proposed social groups that are “exceedingly broad and encompass[] a diverse cross section of society”
• determining that a materially similar group “men who were recruited but refused to join [the gang]” failed the particularity and social- distinction requirements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).