Minh P. Nguyen v. Barr, No. 17-72197 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal. The panel held that petitioner waived review of the Board's discretionary denial of asylum relief by failing to contest this aspect of the Board's decision in his opening brief. The panel also held that the Board properly concluded that petitioner's proposed social group of "known drug users" was not legally cognizable based on lack of particularity under the standards set forth in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014) and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Even if the panel were to ignore the ambiguity of the term "known," "drug" and "user" are broad terms that cause the proposed group to lack definable boundaries and to be amorphous, overbroad, diffuse, or subjective.
Court Description: Immigration. Denying Minh Nguyen’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal, the panel held that Nguyen waived review of the Board’s discretionary denial of asylum relief, and that the Board properly concluded that Nguyen’s proposed social group comprised of “known drug users” was not legally cognizable because it lacks particularity. Nguyen asserted a fear of persecution in Vietnam, including possible placement in a compulsory drug rehabilitation center, based on his prior drug use history and criminal record. The panel held that Nguyen waived review of the Board’s discretionary denial of asylum relief by failing to contest that aspect of the Board’s decision in his opening brief, and instead raising it for the first time in his reply brief. The panel also held that the Board correctly concluded that Nguyen’s proposed social group of “known drug users” lacked particularity under the standards set forth in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014) and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). The panel explained that “drug” and “user” are broad terms that cause the proposed group to lack definable boundaries and to be NGUYEN V. BARR 3 amorphous, overbroad, diffuse, or subjective. The panel observed that although Nguyen asserted that the term “drug” encompassed any narcotic that is illegal in Vietnam, he did not provide any evidence on the Vietnamese societal view, or Vietnamese criminal law, for which drugs could lead to compulsory rehabilitation. The panel also agreed with the Board that the term “user” is vague and could vary broadly based on the amount and frequency of an individual’s drug use, and could encompass first-time users, occasional users, habitual users, or rehabilitated individuals like Nguyen.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.