Aguilon-Lopez v. Lynch
664 F. App'x 14
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Rufino Aguilon-Lopez, a Guatemalan national, was placed in removal proceedings after entering the U.S. unlawfully and conceding removability.
- He applied for withholding of removal (membership in a particular social group) and CAT protection, alleging past and future risk from Guatemalan gangs and some historical government mistreatment of his father.
- Testimony recounted juvenile encounters with gangs (detention and recruitment threats, extortion of relatives, a market robbery) and two incidents in the 1980s when the government briefly detained his father; petitioner admitted no personal harm by the government.
- The IJ found petitioner credible but denied withholding because the harms were isolated and his proposed social group lacked particularity and social distinction; the IJ denied CAT relief for failure to show government acquiescence.
- The BIA affirmed on the ground that petitioner failed to show a nexus to a protected ground and agreed CAT relief was not established.
- The First Circuit reviewed the BIA and IJ decisions under the substantial-evidence standard and denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner is eligible for withholding of removal based on membership in a particular social group (residents threatened by gang recruitment who refuse) | Aguilon-Lopez: gangs target and threaten those who resist recruitment; he and family were threatened and persecuted on that basis | Government: proposed group is amorphous, overbroad, lacks particularity and social distinctiveness; no nexus to a protected ground | Denied — group fails the particularity and social distinction requirements; prior precedent forecloses such groups |
| Whether petitioner established past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution | Aguilon-Lopez: past violent encounters and extortion demonstrate persecution and risk of future harm | Government: incidents were isolated, not systemic persecution; record does not compel a contrary finding | Not reached on merits (court and BIA relied on lack of cognizable social group); IJ had found incidents insufficient in any event |
| Whether petitioner can claim persecution on account of political opinion (from his father’s alleged anti-government ties) | Aguilon-Lopez: father’s past detentions show political risk extending to family | Government: petitioner never alleged political-opinion claim in asylum filing; no evidence government targeted petitioner for political opinions | Denied — no evidence petitioner suffered government persecution for political opinion; BIA’s treatment upheld |
| Whether petitioner is entitled to CAT protection (torture by or with acquiescence of government) | Aguilon-Lopez: country conditions and police inability to control gangs make torture by acquiescence likely | Government: country reports are general; no specific evidence of government acquiescence to petitioner’s feared torture | Denied — substantial evidence supports conclusion that petitioner did not show torture more likely than not with government acquiescence |
Key Cases Cited
- Jianli Chen v. Holder, 703 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2012) (describes standard of review for BIA decisions)
- Renaut v. Lynch, 791 F.3d 163 (1st Cir. 2015) (reviews BIA adoption of IJ findings as a unit)
- Vega-Ayala v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2016) (substantial-evidence standard in immigration factfinding)
- Nikijuluw v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2005) (substantial-evidence review quotation)
- INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (U.S. 1984) (clear probability standard for withholding)
- Sompotan v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2008) (nexus requirement for withholding)
- Paiz-Morales v. Lynch, 795 F.3d 238 (1st Cir. 2015) (particularity/social-distinctness framework for social-group claims)
- Mendez-Barrera v. Holder, 602 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2010) (rejecting similar gang-resistance social-group claims)
- Larios v. Holder, 608 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2010) (gang recruitment/resistance group analysis)
- Faye v. Holder, 580 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2009) (discussing conduct and resistance definitions for social groups)
- Ahmed v. Holder, 611 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2010) (particularity and separability of group members)
- Aldana-Ramos v. Holder, 757 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2014) (CAT acquiescence requirement)
- Nako v. Holder, 611 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2010) (CAT standard: more likely than not and government acquiescence)
- Granada-Rubio v. Lynch, 814 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2016) (upholding CAT denial despite troubling country reports)