[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-175555-105":53,"doc-detail-175555-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","nijc-sample-asylum-appeal","NIJC Sample - Asylum Appeal","","Asylum appeal brief submitted by Claudia Valenzuela for a respondent detained in DHS custody, seeking reversal of an immigration judge’s August 1, 2016 decision denying asylum. The brief argues multiple legal and factual errors, including failure to find past persecution, failure to independently assess well-founded fear of future persecution, incorrect treatment of cognizable social groups and nexus, erroneous conclusions on internal relocation and government protection within El Salvador, and improper denial of Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection under controlling standards.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/nijc-sample-asylum-appeal/175555/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/nijc-sample-asylum-appeal/175555.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Paura","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document","2026-10-19","2026-09-02",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":25},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What remedy does the respondent request on appeal?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The brief requests that the Board of Immigration Appeals remand the proceedings to the immigration judge, seeking reversal of the asylum denial.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What does the brief argue about the immigration judge’s past-persecution finding?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"It contends the immigration judge erred in finding the respondent did not establish past persecution despite controlling law recognizing that a credible threat of imminent death can constitute persecution.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the brief address CAT protection?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"It argues the immigration judge’s CAT denial involved legal error, emphasizing that the CAT inquiry is not the same as the asylum inquiry and that the denial relied on reasons that were legally erroneous.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},175555,1788320841,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":25,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":125,"read_time":140},13056712833777,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","Claudia Valenzuela\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\tDETAINED\nNational Immigrant Justice Center\n208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1300\nChicago, IL 60604\n(312) 660-1308\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW\nBOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS\nFALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nINTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………….1\nISSUES PRESENTED………………………………………………………………………...1\nSTANDARD OF REVIEW…………………………………………………………………..2\nSUMMARY OF ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………2\nFACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY……………………………………………...3\nARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………………….4\nTHE IMMIGRATION JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING THAT MR. CLIENT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED PERSECUTION. ……….……….……….……….4\nThe Immigration Judge erred in finding that Mr. CLIENT did not establish past persecution……….……….……….……………….……….………..….4\nThe Immigration Judge erred in failing to address whether Mr. CLIENT could establish a well-founded fear of future persecution……….………8\nTHE IJ ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT ANY PERSECUTION AGAINST MR. CLIENT WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF A PROTECTED GROUND……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……….……11\nThe IJ erred in concluding that Mr. CLIENT was not a member of a cognizable social group……….……….……….……………….……….……11\nThe IJ erred in concluding that Mr. CLIENT could not establish a nexus between persecution and his social group ……….………………………...12\nTHE IJ ERRED IN FINDING THAT MR. CLIENT COULD AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE PROTECTION OF THE SALVADORAN GOVERNMENT. ………16\nTHE IJ ERRED IN FINDING THAT MR. CLIENT COULD SAFELY AND REASONABLY RELOCATE WITHIN EL SALVADOR. ….……….……….…19\nTHE IJ’S DENIAL OF CAT PROTECTION IS BASED ON LEGAL ERROR..23\nCONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………27\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW\nBOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS\nFALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA\nINTRODUCTION\nRespondent CLIENT  CLIENT  (Mr. CLIENT), presently in Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) custody, submits this brief on appeal, requesting that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) reverse the August 1, 2016 decision issued by the immigration judge (IJ) denying him asylum. For the reasons outlined in this brief, Mr. CLIENT urges that the Board remand proceedings in his case to the IJ.\nISSUES PRESENTED\nMr. CLIENT’s case presents the following issues:\nWhether the IJ erred in finding that Mr. CLIENT had not established persecution, either in the past or in the future.\nWhether the IJ erred in finding that Mr. CLIENT was not a member of a cognizable social group or otherwise persecuted on account of his membership in a cognizable social group.\nWhether the IJ erred in finding that Mr. CLIENT could safely relocate within El Salvador and avail himself of protection by the Salvadoran authorities.\nWhether the IJ erred in finding that Mr. CLIENT did not merit protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).\nSTANDARD OF REVIEW\nIn this case, Mr. CLIENT challenge various errors of law, which the Board reviews de novo. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii). Mr. CLIENT also challenges the IJ’s predictive findings in his case – that he cannot relocate within El Salvador and that he can avail himself of the Salvadoran’s government’s protection - which the Seventh Circuit has stated constitute factual findings. See Rosiles-Camarena v. Holder, 735 F.3d 534, \u001f\u001f\u001f\u001f\u001f\u001f538 (7th Cir. 2013) (“person-specific circumstances (adjudicative facts) can give rise to predictions that also are sensibly treated as facts. That is as true when a prediction depends on country conditions as when it depends on what happened to a particular alien.”). Factual determinations by an immigration judge are reviewed for clear error.  8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)\u0013 TA \\s \"8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)\" \u0015(3)(i); see also Matter of V-F-D-, 23  I. & N. Dec. 859, n.1 (BIA 2006)\u0013 TA \\l \"Matter of V-F-D-, 23  I&N Dec. 859, n.1 (BIA 2006)\" \\s \"Matter of V-F-D-, 23  I&N Dec. 859, n.1 (BIA 2006)\" \\c 1 \u0015.\nSUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT\nThe IJ’s decision denying asylum to Mr. CLIENT rests on various legal and factual errors warranting rem","cbCaivRsBzNzR4PH","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaivRsBzNzR4PH","docx",85629,29,"English","# Introduction\n# Issues Presented\n# Standard of Review\n# Summary of the Argument\n# Factual and Procedural History\n# Argument\n## The Immigration Judge erred in finding no past persecution\n## The IJ erred in concluding no persecution on a protected ground\n## The IJ erred in concluding no Salvadoran government protection\n## The IJ erred in concluding relocation is safe and reasonable\n## The IJ’s denial of CAT protection is based on legal error\n# Conclusion","[{\"question\":\"What remedy does the respondent request on appeal?\",\"answer\":\"The brief requests that the Board of Immigration Appeals remand the proceedings to the immigration judge, seeking reversal of the asylum denial.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the brief argue about the immigration judge’s past-persecution finding?\",\"answer\":\"It contends the immigration judge erred in finding the respondent did not establish past persecution despite controlling law recognizing that a credible threat of imminent death can constitute persecution.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the brief address CAT protection?\",\"answer\":\"It argues the immigration judge’s CAT denial involved legal error, emphasizing that the CAT inquiry is not the same as the asylum inquiry and that the denial relied on reasons that were legally erroneous.\"}]","NIJC Sample - Asylum Appeal | DOCX",10]