Case Citator › Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey

Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
542 F.3d 738
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
178 of 178
Citing cases (total)
591
Treatment dates
2013
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey was overruled in part by the confirmed treatment listed below: all 178 flagged citations have been read, and no additional adverse treatment was confirmed. The en banc Ninth Circuit held that Santos-Lemus is no longer good law only to the extent it mischaracterized the asylum “social visibility” requirement as demanding literal, on-sight visibility.
More on how this was screened

It otherwise distinguished Santos-Lemus's generalized anti-gang facts, and later panels continued to apply its unaffected family-safety, political-opinion, nexus, and Convention Against Torture rules.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

591 later cases cite Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey; 178 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in Part

  • The en banc Ninth Circuit held that Santos-Lemus is no longer good law to the extent it treated the “social visibility” requirement as demanding on-sight visibility.

    Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder · Ninth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    Our prior cases denying asylum to those opposed to gangs are distinguishable. Several of our previous cases considered proposed social groups of those generally opposed to gangs or resistant to gang recruitment. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 746; Ramos-Lopez, 563 F.3d at 861. Those cases did not involve the very specific situation of testifying against gang members in court, and considered only generalized opposition to gangs and gang recruitment. The “opposition to gangs” group might not be “socially visible” if the society in question does not perceive those with such views as constituting a distinct group of persons. But for those who have publicly testified against gang members, their “social visibility” is apparent. To the extent that Santos-Lemus, Ramos-Lopez, and related cases mischaracterized the “social visibility” requirement by requiring “on-sight” visibility, they are no longer good law.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace