Aura Chavez-Chavez v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III
683 F. App'x 551
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Aura Marina Chavez-Chavez, a Guatemalan citizen, conceded removability as present without valid entry documents and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- She asserted past persecution and future risk based on her race (indigenous Mam) and membership in a particular social group (indigenous female of Mayan Mam).
- Chavez-Chavez testified she borrowed money from a man named Freymin; after a repayment dispute he stabbed her and threatened to kill her or her daughter.
- The IJ found no nexus between the attack and a protected ground and found no well-founded fear of future persecution; the BIA affirmed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial-evidence standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chavez-Chavez suffered past persecution on account of race or membership in a particular social group | The stabbing and threats were persecution tied to her being indigenous/Mayan Mam and an indigenous female | The attack arose from a private debt dispute with no evidence of an ethnically motivated motive | Held: Even if violent enough to be persecution, no nexus to a protected ground shown; substantial evidence supports denial |
| Whether Chavez-Chavez has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground | She fears future harm from Freymin and others because of her protected characteristics | Her post-attack conduct (remaining in same home for 1.5–2 years without further harm), lack of harm to relatives, and no knowledge of similar targeted persecution undermine objective reasonableness | Held: Fear is not objectively reasonable; substantial evidence supports denial of asylum and withholding (higher standard) |
| Whether Chavez-Chavez is entitled to withholding of removal (higher likelihood standard) | Past attack and claimed group membership warrant withholding because future persecution is likely | Failure to show nexus and lack of objective evidence of future risk means withholding not met | Held: Denied; petitioner did not meet the more stringent showing required for withholding |
| Whether Chavez-Chavez is entitled to Convention Against Torture protection | The prior attack and threats show risk of torture upon return | No evidence of past torture, family torture, or countrywide practice of torture toward her group; petitioner failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured | Held: Denied; substantial evidence supports conclusion CAT relief is not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing BIA factual findings and CAT review)
- Garcia-Colindres v. Holder, 700 F.3d 1153 (8th Cir. 2012) (requirements for asylum and standards for fear of future persecution)
- Cinto-Velasquez v. Lynch, 817 F.3d 602 (8th Cir. 2016) (presumption of well-founded fear upon showing past persecution)
- Bin Jing Chen v. Holder, 776 F.3d 597 (8th Cir. 2015) (consideration of harm to family and country conditions in evaluating fear of persecution)