In the case of Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Fredy Orlando Ventura, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ventura, a Guatemalan national who had applied for asylum in the United States on grounds that he feared persecution if returned to Guatemala due to his membership in a particular social group (tattooed youth). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied his application because it found no evidence that tattooed youths were persecuted or recognized as a distinct social group in Guatemala. However, instead of remanding back to BIA for further consideration when new material evidence was presented about conditions changing drastically since last considered by BIA - which could potentially affect their decision - both lower courts decided themselves whether changed country conditions would make any difference. The Supreme Court held this approach incorrect and stated that ordinarily federal courts should remand such cases back to agency allowing them first opportunity at considering additional evidences or changes.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Fredy Orlando Ventura argued that the Supreme Court should not have remanded the case back to lower courts for further consideration, but instead should have made a definitive ruling. The dissenters believed that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that even if conditions had changed in Guatemala, Ventura would still be at risk due to his membership in a particular social group - namely former members of guerilla organizations. They contended that by sending the case back down for additional fact-finding on this issue, it unnecessarily prolonged an already lengthy legal process and potentially put Ventura's life at risk. Furthermore, they criticized majority’s decision as an overstep of judicial authority because it dictated how lower courts should weigh different factors when making their decisions.