< Back to Main News page

On review 9th Circuit quoted cases from 2nd, 6th and 7th Circuit. 2nd Circuit found that it was legal error for the IJ not to have considered the events from the perspective of a small child. 6th Circuit case holds that age can be a determinative factor in deciding whether an applicant is eligible for asylum. 7th Circuit case "summed up the law" and noted that age can be a critical factor in the adjudication of asylum cases. And found that harm a child fears or has suffered may be relatively less than that of an adult and still qualify as persecution.

The Ninth Circuit found that these three sister circuits had "vindicated a principle that is surely a matter of common sense: a child's reactions to injuries to his family is different from an adult's." The court held that it would join the Second, Sixth and Seventh Circuits in affirming the legal rule that injuries to a family must be considered in an asylum case where the events that form the basis of the past persecution claim were perceived when the applicant was a child. The court held that the IJ in this case committed legal error when she did not look at the events from Petitioners' perspective, nor measure the degree of their injuries by their impact on children their ages.