Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (2006)

In Gonzales v. Thomas, the underlying dispute involved Michelle Thomas and her family, who applied for asylum in the United States, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution in their native South Africa. Their application indicated that their fear was based on their political opinions and their membership in a particular social group, specifically as relatives of Michelle's father-in-law, "Boss Ronnie," a white South African with alleged racist views. During the proceedings, the Immigration Judge focused primarily on their race and political views, ultimately rejecting their asylum claim. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed this decision without further elaboration, primarily addressing the Thomases' race-related arguments. The case reached the Supreme Court after a Ninth Circuit panel initially ruled in favor of the Thomases, holding that the BIA had not adequately considered their claim of persecution based on their family ties to "Boss Ronnie." The Ninth Circuit then took the case en banc, where it unanimously concluded that a family could constitute a "particular social group" under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The en banc court determined that the Thomases were indeed attacked and threatened due to their association with "Boss Ronnie," thereby falling within the statutory definition of a social group. This decision was met with dissent from four judges, who argued that such determinations should first be made by the relevant administrative agency. The Solicitor General petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court, questioning whether the Ninth Circuit had erred by making a determination about the Thomases' status as a "particular social group" without prior resolution from the relevant administrative agency. The Solicitor General contended that the role of the courts in immigration cases is typically one of review rather than initial determination, referencing the "ordinary remand rule" established in previous Supreme Court decisions.

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, without prior resolution by the relevant administrative agency, that members of a family can constitute a "particular social group" within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.