Aldana Ramos v. Holder, Jr.
757 F.3d 9
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Elvis and Robin Aldana-Ramos, Guatemalan brothers, fled to the U.S. after their father Haroldo was kidnapped for ransom, paid a full ransom, and later found murdered. The brothers credibly testified they were subsequently followed and intimidated by unmarked cars and armed men.
- The brothers allege members of the local "Z" gang and associates of a business contact (Marlon Martínez and his son) were responsible; arrests were made but charges were later dropped.
- Petitioners applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, claiming persecution on account of membership in their immediate family as a particular social group.
- The IJ found petitioners credible but denied relief for lack of nexus to a protected ground and said the family claim failed social-visibility and nexus requirements; the IJ denied CAT relief for lack of government-acquiescence evidence.
- The BIA affirmed, treating the crimes as motivated by criminal intent/wealth (not a protected characteristic), and concluded petitioners failed to show persecution "on account of" family membership.
- The First Circuit granted review, vacated the BIA’s denial of asylum/withholding, and remanded for further proceedings; it denied relief under CAT.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether immediate family can be a "particular social group" | Family membership is an immutable, identifiable trait qualifying as a particular social group | Crimes were motivated by wealth, not a protected ground; family alone insufficient here | Family can be a particular social group; BIA erred if it required an additional protected ground; remand to BIA to decide factually |
| Whether petitioners suffered "persecution" | Kidnapping, ransom, murder of father, repeated intimidation and armed men constitute persecution | Conduct was criminal harassment, not necessarily persecution on protected-ground theory | Record permits (but does not compel) a finding of persecution; BIA failed to fully consider evidence; remand required |
| Whether persecution was "on account of" family membership (nexus/mixed motive) | Even if wealth was a motive, family membership could be a central reason; mixed motives allowed under statute | Because initial motive was financial, persecution was not on account of a protected ground | BIA misapplied law by treating wealth motive as foreclosing protected-ground motive; remand to assess whether family membership was at least one central reason |
| CAT protection (government acquiescence/torture) | Police inaction and alleged bribery of judge show government unwillingness to control gang; risk of torture on return | Record shows police investigated and arrests occurred; no evidence government would acquiesce to torture in future | Denied: petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they'd be tortured by or with government acquiescence |
Key Cases Cited
- Gebremichael v. I.N.S., 10 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1993) (nuclear family can be a particular social group)
- Ruiz v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2008) (kinship can supply an immutable characteristic for social-group status)
- I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (standard for reviewing BIA factfinding)
- I.N.S. v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (ordinary rule to remand to BIA for first-instance determinations)
- Tapiero de Orejuela v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2005) (similar facts—wealthy family subjected to kidnapping and threats can constitute persecution)
- Un v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 205 (1st Cir. 2005) (implicit threats can support finding of persecution)
- Nako v. Holder, 611 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2010) (CAT requires showing torture by or with government acquiescence)
- Perlera-Sola v. Holder, 699 F.3d 572 (1st Cir. 2012) (wealth motive alone does not create asylum eligibility absent protected-ground nexus)