Alvaro Roberto Duenas Burgos v. U.S. Attorney General
680 F. App'x 828
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Alvaro Roberto Duenas Burgos, proceeding pro se, sought asylum and withholding of removal after threats in El Salvador.
- He and his family received anonymous phone calls demanding $1,000 and threatening to kill the family if not paid; no physical harm or direct contact occurred.
- The calls were made to his aunt’s house; Duenas Burgos did not know the callers’ identities or motivations and admitted callers did not state why they threatened the family.
- Country-condition evidence showed high crime and gang extortion in El Salvador, often involving random targeting for ransom.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the immigration judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal; Duenas Burgos appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner suffered past persecution | Duenas Burgos: anonymous extortion threats to family constitute past persecution | Government: threats were verbal, no harm or contact; amounted to harassment, not persecution | No — substantial evidence shows threats did not rise to persecution |
| Whether threats were on account of a protected ground (membership in a family that receives remittances) | Duenas Burgos: threats were motivated by family member’s U.S. residence and remittance-sending (a particular social group) | Government: no evidence callers knew about or targeted him for that social-group membership; motive unknown; country conditions show random criminal extortion | No — record lacks nexus showing threats were because of a protected ground |
| Whether petitioner has a well-founded fear of future persecution | Duenas Burgos: past threats and country conditions create a reasonable fear of future persecution | Government: threats ceased, other family members remain safely in El Salvador, and general crime does not establish persecution on protected-ground grounds | No — subjective fear not backed by objective showing tied to protected ground |
| Whether petitioner qualifies for withholding of removal (more-likely-than-not standard) | Duenas Burgos: same facts support withholding as for asylum | Government: petitioner fails asylum standard, thus cannot meet higher withholding standard | No — failure to meet asylum standard means withholding not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir.) (standard for reviewing BIA decisions and when to review IJ decision)
- Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard for factual findings)
- Mendoza v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 327 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir.) (reversal requires record compel opposite conclusion)
- Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir.) (elements for asylum and link to protected ground)
- Shi v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 707 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir.) (cumulative-evidence evaluation for persecution)
- Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir.) (subjective and objective components for well-founded fear)
- Rodriguez Morales v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 488 F.3d 884 (11th Cir.) (nexus requirement: persecution must be "because of" protected ground)
- Ruiz v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir.) (evidence of general criminality does not prove persecution on protected-ground grounds)