Images of death, persecution, fear, belonging to specific minority groups and depredations of humanity have been the cause of ongoing immigration. The term refugee is used to describe a person who has been forced to flee his or her country of origin due to a political crisis, natural disaster, or extreme persecution and other violations of basic human rights that force someone to seek refuge in another country. In most cases, asylum seekers are always treated harshly in the different countries in which they seek refuge, due to the risk of straining the resources available in the host country. For example, refugees fleeing to economically disadvantaged nations like Jordan and Germany find it difficult to find peace of mind, even though usually the reason they flee to those countries is because they are seeking peace and refuge from whatever they are fleeing. That said, the case of Rreshpja V. Gonzales is significant because he had to deal with one of the world's most dire problems: immigration. In this case, Rreshpja, the defendant faced immigration charges due to alleged fear of persecution in her home country of Albania. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay International law requires asylum seekers to provide beyond a reasonable doubt that they are facing threats or persecution in their home country by falling into the categories of: religion, politics, nationality, or race. Rreshpja obtained a fraudulent visa to gain admission to the United States at Michigan State University. Furthermore, his non-immigrant visa was obtained through fraud, thus leading to the denial of his asylum application. According to Perkovic, an “asylum seeker must demonstrate that he or she is facing persecution with genuine submission and must demonstrate an objectively reasonable purpose.” Rreshpja would have to demonstrate that she would be persecuted if she were forced to return to Albania, her country of origin. She was asked to produce a realistic situation on which her fear was based. The social group profiled by Rreshpja said it did not qualify to be defined as a target group for persecution. International law requires that a social group consists of people who have standard and immutable characteristics. Rreshpja's case is complicated because she did not explicitly state that she was persecuted because she was a member of a particular social group. Although his reasons that all young Albanian women are forced into prostitution seem like a reasonable fact, but based on international law on the point related to the persecution of a given social group. The case of Rreshpia does not constitute a social group in line with the requirements of the INA. The first reason is that almost all the appropriate decisions adopted have proven to reject the generalization and classification of mental asylums. For example, the case of the Jamaican groups, who wanted to be considered asylum refugees because they claimed to be mentally ill, was denied due to the lack of connection with international immigration laws. Although there were issues related to the case of Rreshpja self-proclaimed social group, he cited the case Mohammed v. Gonzales to support his thesis that social groups can be defined in different dimensions. The case provided the opportunity for a comprehensive explanation of the social groups that should be protected by asylum laws. In the case of Mohammed v. Gonzales, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that female genital mutilation is considered persecution and justifies thefact that it is carried out on a particular social group under siege. Since the Circuit came to an agreement that a social group can be considered as Somali women, Rreshpja's case cannot be considered a given social group under threat of submission to prostitution. Furthermore, after the court analyzed the case of female genital mutilation and realized that it was a cultural practice, it had to consider the case of being part of the social groups that need protection from international immigration laws. After all, there were beyond doubt reasons for accepting Somali women in the United States as asylums. However, Rreshpja presented no evidence of being a victim of a practice that forced young women into prostitution in Albania. The second reason is that a social group cannot be defined by the fact that the group suffers persecution. Rreshpja did not outline any limiting factors that could demonstrate that society has a certain reaction to persecutors that could be a touchstone for the definition of a social group. His case sought to imply that any attractive woman in Albania would be eligible for asylum in the United States if her request was accepted. Moreover, attractiveness and beauty value were considered a subjective criterion that could not allow the court to grant her the possibility of becoming a refugee in the United States. Rreshpja argued that her case required protection by granting her asylum in the United States to assist future persecution that necessitated a humanitarian grant of asylum. The challenge Rreshpja was facing was that she had not provided convincing reasons preventing her from returning to Albania. She should have provided the severity of the incident and should have demonstrated that she had reasons beyond any doubt, as indicated above, to be able to be kidnapped and subjected to prostitution. Other cases led the court to conclude that Rreshpja was heading to the United States without any compelling reason for her alleged submission to prostitution. According to the decision, the defendant had demonstrated that he had suffered persecution in the past. The case demonstrated that the presumption of future recorded abuse should be invalidated. In similar cases, asylum seekers have been required to provide evidence that they are victims of current or future persecution. Under international immigration laws, an individual has the right to refuse removal to the INA if the person provides reasons to protect his or her life from threats due to membership of a particular social group. Moreover, the court's decision to refuse removal is based on the prediction of a clear probability of persecution. According to the case Cardoza v. Fonseca, Rreshpja did not meet the court's requirement for a clear likelihood of persecution, so it was unable to provide rigorous standards to withhold her deportation. Case was aware that his reasons were subjective as any beautiful Albanian lady could seek asylum in the United States based on the court's decision to refuse her deportation to Albania. You did not provide adequate evidence that your removal and deportation could result in torture and persecution. Additionally, he had obtained a visa using fraudulent documents that provided reasons why he planned to remain in the United States as an illegal asylum. To be accepted as an asylum and to prevent her removal, Rreshpja would have to outline her situation as being linked to torture, defined as an act that could subject her to severe pain, suffering, mental or physical anguish. He had no evidence for his claims that he was addressing the problemof prostitution. No single confession could have allowed his claims to be accepted by US law enforcement. No third party was subjected to the same allegedly threatening situation and no discrimination in line with Rreshpja's case was ever recorded. No one had suffered from the fear that Rreshpja had expressed while asking for his removal from the United States to be rejected. According to Ali v. Reno 237, Rreshpja was not entitled to relief from the CAT. The IJ found that government officials in her country had found no compelling reason to convict the individual who Rreshpja claimed subjected her to threats of kidnapping and subjecting her to prostitution. The term acquiescence is used to mean that prior to the activity a public official requires having confirmed the torture claimed by Rreshpja. There was no awareness of such events in Albania that could have allowed Rreshpja to be considered an asylum seeker and allow her to enter the United States under the title of asylum seeker. Another fact that denied her the possibility of obtaining asylum in the United States is that she did not provide adequate information that could lead to convincing the person she reported that he had threatened to kidnap her. Furthermore, her allegations that the police ignored her request for protection against abduction were not sufficient to guarantee her protection from the CAT. Another reason is that the Albanian government has established mechanisms to prevent and resolve the problem of human trafficking. It turned out that the Albanian government was severely punishing people involved in aspects that promoted human trafficking, thus providing yet another reason to deny them asylum. All police officers who encouraged human trafficking were convicted, so Rreshpja's case could not get full protection under CAT. Rreshpja did not provide reasons that could link the Albanian government to human trafficking. CAT protection requires asylum seekers to come from societies that promote persecution. As a result, Rreshpja's failure to provide reasons why she should be granted asylum was not taken into account. Rreshpja's claims that the BIA concluded its verdict without relying on the majority opinion were not upheld, so his appeal resulted in confirmation that the BIA's no-opinion summary affirmation procedure was fair and morally acceptable. Rreshpja did not request asylum on humanitarian grounds. Therefore, the IJ's litigation before the BIA issued an ethically correct opinion according to its case. The BIA could not have corrected any errors claimed by Rreshpja, so her case was hard and determined based on the summary of events and issues she was facing and that she anticipated were being imposed on her. It was accepted under international immigration law that an individual member of the BIA was permitted to authorize and affirm the IJ's decision without necessarily indicating the basis for affirmative action. The statement indicated that the IJ had made a correct decision on Rreshpja's case and stated that there was no need to correct any errors regarding the definition of social groups that should fall into the category of asylum seekers. Rreshpja's case was not examined according to the need to be free from gender violence. It should have promoted his need for protection and asylum and declared it a human right, not a “what if” situation. Moreover, the BIA has been put to work on the process of protecting asylum rights. Rreshpja's case offers no reason to do so.