Anita Argueta Diaz De Gomez v. Robert Wilkinson
987 F.3d 359
| 4th Cir. | 2021Background
- Anita Diaz de Gomez, a Guatemalan schoolteacher, witnessed a 2008 mass killing by the Zetas; the gang then threatened her family and demanded recruitment/extortion. Her husband fled to the U.S. in 2010.
- The Zetas targeted her brother and parents for recruitment/extortion; in April 2015 the gang caused a moped collision, kidnapped and mutilated her brother, and murdered him in July 2015 after he refused to join.
- After the moped incident and her parents’ refusal to pay, Diaz de Gomez began receiving direct death threats (in person, phone, text, and written). She recorded and preserved threatening messages.
- She reported threats to two Guatemalan law‑enforcement bodies in 2015 but authorities took no action; contemporaneous country‑condition evidence showed extensive Zetas influence and corruption in local institutions.
- The IJ found Diaz de Gomez credible and corroborated; the BIA denied relief, concluding no nexus to a protected ground and that the Guatemalan government could protect her. The Fourth Circuit granted review, found familial nexus and government inability/unwillingness to protect, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Diaz de Gomez (Plaintiff) | U.S. Government (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether past persecution was on account of membership in her nuclear family (particular social group) | Family ties were at least one central reason for threats because the gang explicitly threatened her based on relatives’ refusals and targeted family members sequentially | Gang targeted family for extortion/recruitment (financial motive); if she had acceded, threats would have stopped, so family ties were not a protected‑ground nexus | Held for Diaz de Gomez: familial ties were one central reason for persecution; nexus requirement satisfied |
| Whether the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to protect her from private actors (the Zetas) | Police ignored reports despite audio/written evidence; country reports show pervasive gang corruption and infiltration of institutions, so authorities could not protect her | A slow or imperfect response does not prove inability; Guatemala was taking steps to combat gangs; her early departure undermines claim | Held for Diaz de Gomez: record shows government unwilling/unable to control persecutors; no effective protection was provided |
| Whether the death threats and attacks constitute past persecution | Threats and attacks (including threats to her and to family, kidnapping/maiming and murder of her brother) amount to past persecution | Suggests some threats were indirect or aimed at family rather than her personally | Held for Diaz de Gomez: threats and family targeting qualify as past persecution; IJ credibility finding accepted |
| Remedy and scope on remand | Requests full relief (asylum, withholding, CAT); seeks presumption of future persecution based on past persecution | BIA had denied all forms of relief; argued remand not warranted on nexus/protection issues | Court remanded to BIA to apply presumption of well‑founded fear and reconsider asylum/withholding/CAT and relocation/humanitarian issues in light of holdings |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez‑Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (4th Cir. 2015) (nexus standard: protected‑ground must be “at least one central reason” for persecution)
- Crespin‑Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (explains ‘‘more than incidental’’ standard for nexus and multiple central reasons)
- Velasquez v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 188 (4th Cir. 2017) (nuclear family qualifies as a particular social group)
- Zavaleta‑Policiano v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2017) (look to context, nature, timing of threats to assess nexus)
- Orellana v. Barr, 925 F.3d 145 (4th Cir. 2019) (government’s token assistance insufficient; need showing of inability/unwillingness to control private persecutors)
- Bedoya v. Barr, 981 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 2020) (accept factual predicate absent adverse credibility finding)
- Cruz v. Sessions, 853 F.3d 122 (4th Cir. 2017) (family relationship can be central reason even if intertwined with other motives)
- Salgado‑Sosa v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2018) (BIA erred by focusing narrowly on immediate trigger without accounting for relationships prompting persecution)