Arminda Del Carmen Santacruz v. Loretta E. Lynch, 666 F. App'x 576

Santacruz, a Salvadoran national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2009 and conceded removability, applying for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on past domestic abuse by former partner Oscar Garcia and fear of future abuse.
She testified to repeated verbal aggression, an incident in 2001–2002 with broken glass, childhood sexual assaults by relatives, and a violent October 2006 beating and attempted rape by Garcia after which she left him and moved in with her mother.
After 2006 Garcia threatened her and once attempted rape at her mother’s home; she later saw him once leaving work and received one contact in which he threatened to take the children; no police reports or medical treatment for Garcia’s abuse were documented.
Santacruz lived and worked in the same town unmolested by Garcia from 2007 until her departure in 2009 and provided few specific details about other alleged incidents.
The IJ found her generally credible but denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief, concluding she failed to show past persecution, a well‑founded fear of future persecution, membership in a cognizable particular social group, or government inability/unwillingness to control Garcia; the BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Santacruz suffered past persecution	Santacruz: abuse by Garcia (beating, rape attempts, threats) constitutes past persecution	Government/BIA: incidents were isolated/insufficiently severe to constitute persecution	Denied — mistreatment did not rise to persecution
Whether she has a well‑founded fear of future persecution	Santacruz: fear of Garcia repeating abuses if returned	Government/BIA: she lived unmolested for years after last contact; no objective reasonable fear shown	Denied — no well‑founded fear
Whether she belongs to a cognizable particular social group	Santacruz: proposed groups are Salvadoran women in domestic relationships unable to leave or viewed as property	Government/BIA: even if groups considered, persecution standard not met so group analysis unnecessary	Not reached on merits — unnecessary because persecution not shown
Eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief	Santacruz: higher relief should follow from asylum claim facts	Government/BIA: higher proof required; asylum failure precludes withholding; CAT not met because torture likelihood not shown	Denied — did not meet heightened standards

Garcia v. Holder, 746 F.3d 869 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing BIA factual findings)
Supangat v. Holder, 735 F.3d 792 (8th Cir. 2013) (review standard for BIA factual findings)
Salman v. Holder, 687 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2012) (deference to BIA on legal interpretations)
Garcia‑Colindres v. Holder, 700 F.3d 1153 (8th Cir. 2012) (isolated violence may not constitute past persecution)
Malonga v. Holder, 621 F.3d 757 (8th Cir. 2010) (isolated violence analysis; BIA need not detail every factor)
Shaghil v. Holder, 638 F.3d 828 (8th Cir. 2011) (definition of persecution)
Ladyha v. Holder, 588 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 2009) (persecution excludes low‑level harassment)
Gutierrez‑Olivares v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2008) (harassment vs. persecution standard)
Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2008) (higher standards for withholding and CAT; torture requires more than well‑founded fear)
Setiadi v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2006) (well‑founded fear requires both subjective fear and objective reasonableness)
Berte v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2005) (objective component of well‑founded fear)
Saldana v. Lynch, 820 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2016) (asylum failure precludes withholding claim success)
Gutierrez‑Vidal v. Holder, 709 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2013) (failure to show persecution moots particular social group analysis)
Barragan‑Verduzco v. I.N.S., 777 F.2d 424 (8th Cir. 1985) (BIA must consider issues sufficiently to show reasoned decision)