Araceli Vazquez Garcia v. Merrick Garland
20-72470
| 9th Cir. | Oct 14, 2021Background
- Petitioners are Mexican citizens Araceli Vazquez Garcia and her daughters, who petitioned for review of the BIA’s dismissal of their appeals from an IJ order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- Their claim arose after the murder of Alfonso Alejandro Rebolledo Vazquez and subsequent vague threatening phone calls to the family; callers made no demands and petitioner conceded she did not know who killed Alfonso or the motive.
- Some other family members of the murdered relative living in Mexico had not received threats.
- Petitioners asserted persecution based on membership in proposed social groups (family-related groups); the BIA found the record showed generalized violence rather than targeted persecution on account of a protected ground.
- The IJ and BIA denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; the Ninth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nexus for asylum/withholding: whether persecution was on account of a protected ground (membership in social groups) | Vazquez Garcia: murder and threats show they were targeted because of family/social-group membership | Government/BIA: petitioners lacked evidence of motive or identity of attackers; threats and murder are generalized/random violence | BIA decision supported by substantial evidence; petitioners failed to show persecution on account of a protected ground (asylum and withholding denied) |
| Whether the violence/threats constitute persecution (past or likely future) | Murder and subsequent threats establish past persecution and well-founded fear of future persecution | Violence appears indiscriminate; at least some relatives not threatened; callers gave no reason—evidence shows generalized violence | Record permits conclusion that harm was generalized violence, not persecution tied to protected ground |
| CAT: whether petitioners showed torture more likely than not with government participation or acquiescence if returned | Petitioners: Mexico’s inability/unwillingness to protect implies likelihood of torture with state acquiescence | Government/BIA: no evidence of past torture or that Mexican authorities would acquiesce; mere ineffectiveness insufficient | Petitioners failed to show likelihood of torture with government acquiescence; CAT relief denied |
| Standard of review: whether record compels reversal | Petitioners: substantial-evidence review should still compel relief on these facts | Government: decisions reviewed under substantial-evidence standard and should be upheld unless record compels contrary conclusion | Ninth Circuit applied substantial-evidence review and concluded the record does not compel reversal; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2017) (articulates substantial-evidence review standard for asylum proceedings)
- Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (asylum requires protected ground to be one central reason for persecution)
- Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (withholding requires protected ground to be a reason for persecution)
- Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized/indiscriminate violence does not support asylum absent singling out on account of protected ground)
- Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (attacks motivated by theft or random violence lack nexus to protected ground)
- Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2002) (membership in a family group does not automatically prove persecution on account of that group)
- Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2014) (CAT requires showing torture more likely than not with government participation or acquiescence)
- Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2016) (general governmental ineffectiveness to prevent crime does not establish acquiescence for CAT purposes)