Belkis Corea Escoto v. Merrick B. Garland
20-3252
| 6th Cir. | Jul 2, 2021Background
- Belkis Corea, a Honduran national, entered the U.S. in 2016 with her Honduran-born son H.; DHS charged her with removability and she conceded removability.
- Corea applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on gang-related threats, extortion (by a person called “El Pollo”), and past family-targeted violence; she also sought administrative closure/continuance to pursue a U visa based on domestic violence in the U.S.
- The IJ denied asylum/withholding/CAT and denied administrative closure; the BIA affirmed, denying a continuance and relying in part on Matter of A-B- and Castro-Tum to reject administrative closure.
- While appeal was pending, the Attorney General vacated Matter of A-B-, which undermined the BIA’s reliance on A-B- for social-group analysis in Corea’s asylum claim.
- The Sixth Circuit consolidated Corea’s petitions, upheld the BIA’s denials of continuance and administrative closure (finding no abuse of discretion), but remanded for the BIA to reconsider Corea’s asylum claim under pre–A-B- precedent; the motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Corea) | Defendant's Argument (DHS/AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Corea proved asylum/withholding via proposed particular social groups (e.g., Honduran women unable to leave relationships; familial groups) | Corea: she fears gang persecution as a member of those social groups; A-R-C-G–type precedent supports cognizability | AG/BIA: A-B- forecloses these groups and Corea failed to show nexus or government inability/unwillingness to protect | Court: Remand to BIA to reconsider asylum/withholding under pre–A-B- precedent (A-B- was later vacated) |
| Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying a continuance to pursue a U visa | Corea: needs continuance because pending U petition could affect removal; she submitted law‑enforcement certification and claims prima facie U eligibility | DHS: Corea failed to show prima facie U eligibility or that USCIS would grant required waiver; she can pursue U application even with removal order | Held: No abuse of discretion; Corea failed to demonstrate prima facie U eligibility and did not address inadmissibility waiver likelihood |
| Whether administrative closure was permissible | Corea: sought administrative closure to await U visa outcome | DHS/AG: Castro-Tum limits authority to administratively close; no applicable exception here | Held: Administrative closure barred under Castro-Tum/Hernandez-Serrano; denial affirmed |
| Whether the BIA erred in denying reconsideration or should have sua sponte remanded | Corea: BIA misstated that the IJ found lack of prima facie U eligibility and should reconsider/remand | DHS: BIA acted within discretion; court lacks jurisdiction to mandate sua sponte reconsideration | Held: Denial of reconsideration not an abuse of discretion; court lacks jurisdiction to compel sua sponte remand; BIA’s independent conclusion stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Umaña-Ramos v. Holder, 724 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2013) (review standards: BIA as final agency determination; deference rules)
- Kante v. Holder, 634 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2011) (social‑group definition; non‑circularity requirement)
- Zaldana Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2015) (well‑founded fear and withholding/probability standard)
- Cruz‑Guzman v. Barr, 920 F.3d 1033 (6th Cir. 2019) (three‑part particular‑social‑group test)
- Abu‑Khaliel v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2006) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for continuance denials)
- Fang Huang v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2008) (review of denials of remand/continuance)
- Hernandez‑Serrano v. Barr, 981 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2020) (Castro‑Tum endorsement; limits on administrative closure authority)
- Barry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 721 (6th Cir. 2008) (jurisdictional limitation on compelling sua sponte BIA action)