Miranda case summary VideoMiranda v. Arizona [SCOTUSbrief]
Hermine Santrouschitz Essay
Know more. After review, we deny Ms. Miranda's petition. We assume the parties' familiarity with the record, and set out only what is necessary to explain our decision. First, the BIA did not err in ruling that Ms. Miranda's proposed social group - Guatemalan women against miranda case summary - is not legally cognizable for purposes of asylum.
A cognizable social group under 8 U. See Amezcua-Preciedo v. GeneralF. Miranda's proposed social group does not satisfy this standard. For example, Ms. Miranda did not establish that her proposed group was viewed as socially distinct in Guatemala. See Mendez-Berrera v.
HolderF. Given our ruling on this issue, we need not address whether Ms. Miranda established persecution on account of membership in her proposed group. Article source, substantial evidence supported the Caes determinations that Ms. Miranda failed to establish 1 that the Guatemalan government was aware of the illegal activity directed at her, and 2 that it was more likely than not that she would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government upon her return to Guatemala.
The Guatemalan government's mixed success in combating, prosecuting, and suppressing gang violence and torture - as indicated in the human rights report offered by Ms. Miranda - does not constitute acquiescence in such miranda case summary. In addition, Ms.]