Connection lost
Server error
PITCHERSKAIA v. I.N.S. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Ninth Circuit held that an asylum applicant need not prove their persecutor had a subjective intent to harm or punish. The court remanded the case for reconsideration under the correct objective standard for persecution.
Legal Significance: This case established that persecution under asylum law is defined objectively by the nature of the harm inflicted, not the persecutor’s subjective intent, such as a desire to “cure” or “treat.”
PITCHERSKAIA v. I.N.S. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Alla Pitcherskaia, a Russian citizen, sought asylum in the U.S., claiming past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution due to her political opinions supporting lesbian and gay civil rights and her membership in a particular social group (Russian lesbians). She testified to multiple arrests, detentions, beatings, interrogations, and forced psychiatric evaluations and treatments by Russian authorities aimed at changing her sexual orientation. The Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied her application, assuming her testimony was credible. The BIA majority reasoned that the actions, including involuntary psychiatric confinement and treatments, did not constitute persecution because the authorities intended to “cure” her, not to punish her. Pitcherskaia petitioned for review, arguing the BIA applied an erroneous legal standard for “persecution” under Section 101(a)(42)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Section 101(a)(42)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act require an asylum applicant to prove that their persecutor harbored a subjective intent to harm or punish for an act to constitute persecution?
No, Section 101(a)(42)(A) of the INA does not require an alien to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo c
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does Section 101(a)(42)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act require an asylum applicant to prove that their persecutor harbored a subjective intent to harm or punish for an act to constitute persecution?
Conclusion
This decision significantly clarifies the definition of persecution in asylum law, establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, q
Legal Rule
Persecution under Section 101(a)(42)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A), is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea co
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit determined that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- “Persecution” under the INA does not require proof of a persecutor’s