Your browser does not support JavaScript!

Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Erika Roman, Esq.

Erika Roman successfully overturned two prior court decisions. The immigration judge (IJ) and the BIA concluded that Singh did not qualify for asylum or withholding of removal because the injuries and threats that Singh had suffered at the hands of Congress Party members were not sufficiently serious.

Fears Based on the Threats and Past Persecution of Political Opinion

Immigration Attorney Erika Roman of ELR Abogados stated, “Mr. Singh fled to the United States because he is fearful to return to India. Mr. Singh was threatened three times. Mr. Singh suffered past persecution on account of his imputed political opinion and fears further harm based on the threats that he received before he left India.”

Attorney Erika Roman Argues for Relief

Erika Roman added, “The type of physical beatings Mr. Singh experienced would rise to the level of persecution due to the threat of further violence. Mr. Singh also faced similar persecution on account of his familial association and imputed political opinion. Therefore, he should qualify as being persecuted.”

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Overturns Two Prior Court Decisions and Agrees with Erika Roman

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, stating, “The BIA affirm[ed] the Immigration Judge’s determination that the lack of serious harm does not support a finding of persecution. Its analysis of Singh’s past- persecution claim stopped at the serious-harm prong based on this conclusion. As the analysis below explains, we conclude that the BIA’s determination that Singh did not suffer serious harm is not supported by substantial evidence. The BIA’s analysis therefore should have proceeded to the remaining components of the past-persecution analysis. For this reason, we remand Singh’s petition to the BIA so that it can complete the past-persecution analysis.”

Appeals Court Publishes Decision Making Case Law

The recent rulling means that a true threat can be enough to have a valid claim and you do not have to be actually harmed, the threat alone is enough. Erika Roman, Esq. also pointed out that past denials may file a Motion to Reopen in light of the Court’s Published Decision.

Skip to content