The court noted that membership of a particular social group is a ground for persecution. However, the term ‘social group’ was not defined in any legislation. The Appeal Board thus determined whether the appellant’s COTAXI membership qualified as such. Due to the absence of a concrete definition, the Appeal Board used the interpretive rule of ejusdem generis. This rule implies that the general must be interpreted in light of the specific. The general in this regard was COTAXI and the specific was the listed grounds of persecution. In essence, if a new group is being introduced, then the court must interpret it in light of the already existing grounds (groups). Here the Appeal Board identified an immutable characteristic. Immutable characteristics are characteristics which cannot be changed, or are so fundamental to a belief system that they are not required to be changed (e.g., race or religion).
The court held that being a member of a taxi company is not immutable and can be changed, as it is not a fundamental belief but rather a job.
Persecution, membership of a particular social group, ejusdem generis rule, immutable characteristic
The appellant was a national of El Salvador. He left his country for the USA where he made his application for asylum. He was a co-founder of a taxi company called COTAXI. On specific occasions, COTAXI received demands from a guerrilla group to participate in work stoppages to damage the economy. COTAXI refused to participate and its members received threats on their lives. As a result, COTAXI drivers were assaulted or killed.
A short while after receiving these threats, the appellant was assaulted in his taxi. He left El Salvador because he feared for his life. At his immigration hearing, the court held that he had failed to show a well-founded fear of persecution on any of the listed grounds, and that the guerrilla group was no longer active. His application was rejected. Aggrieved by the decision, he appealed to the Immigration Appeal Board.
The appellant’s membership in COTAXI failed the ejusdem generis test and thus he could not be categorized as a member of a particular social group. Consequently, he could not be referred to as a refugee on any of the listed grounds. The appeal was dismissed.
The appellant’s membership in COTAXI failed the ejusdem generis test.