## Facts

- Abdulmunaem Abdullah Al-Ghorbani and his brother Salah Abdullah Motahar Alghurbani are Yemeni citizens who entered the United States in 1999 on nonimmigrant visas.
- Abdulmunaem, from a low-status clan associated with the meat-cutting trade, formed a romantic relationship with Najla Abu Taleb, a member of the Hashmid clan, described as a top-tier family group in Yemen.
- Najla’s father, General Abu Taleb, was a high-ranking Yemeni military officer and adviser with access to armed guards and government influence.
- After Abdulmunaem sought permission to marry Najla, the General allegedly assaulted him and threatened to kill him for disgracing the family by crossing rigid class and marriage norms.
- The brothers fled Yemen, asserting they would be killed by the General or his guards if returned because of their low clan status and defiance of repressive marriage customs.
- The government initiated removal proceedings in 2003; the brothers applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- An Immigration Judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed; the brothers petitioned for review in the Sixth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the denial of asylum given the one-year filing deadline and limited review of timeliness determinations.
2. Whether the agency properly denied withholding of removal by rejecting the claim that petitioners faced persecution “more likely than not” on account of membership in a particular social group.
3. Whether a group defined by low clan/socio-economic status and opposition to Yemen’s class-based marriage norms can qualify as a cognizable particular social group.
4. Whether petitioners were entitled to CAT protection based on the threatened harm and the General’s connection to state power.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit denied review of the asylum claim due to the one-year filing bar and the statutory limits on judicial review of that determination.
- The court granted review in part as to withholding of removal, holding that the agency’s analysis of the claimed particular social group and nexus was legally inadequate.
- The court set aside the withholding determination and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the proper framework.
- The court did not grant CAT relief outright; the disposition left further consideration of risk and state involvement to the agency on remand.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts generally lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s application of the asylum one-year filing deadline absent a reviewable legal or constitutional claim.
- Withholding of removal requires proof that persecution is “more likely than not” and is not subject to the asylum one-year filing deadline.
- A “particular social group” may be based on characteristics that are immutable or so fundamental to identity or conscience that the applicant should not be required to change them; clan/class status and resistance to entrenched marriage norms may satisfy this standard when supported by record evidence.
- Persecution motivated by enforcement of rigid social hierarchy and marriage customs can constitute harm “on account of” group membership, rather than a purely private dispute, when the motivation is tied to class/clan status and socially enforced norms and the persecutor has power to carry out threats.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit refused to revisit the agency’s asylum denial because the one-year bar foreclosed meaningful review, but it remanded the withholding claim after concluding the agency failed to adequately analyze whether petitioners’ low clan status and defiance of class-based marriage norms formed a cognizable particular social group with the required nexus to threatened persecution.


Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980 (6th Cir. 2009)