Carlos Ascencio-Vanegas v. Jefferson Sessions, III
705 F. App'x 297
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Carlos Mauricio Ascencio-Vanegas, an El Salvador native, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after threats and attempted gang recruitment.
- He claimed persecution based on membership in a particular social group: young Salvadoran males morally opposed to gang involvement and subject to forced recruitment.
- He also claimed persecution based on his political opinion (anti-gang, anti-corruption) and fear of torture by gangs possibly tied to corrupt officials.
- The Immigration Judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding insufficient evidence of persecution or the required nexus to a protected ground or to public-official acquiescence for CAT.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the IJ and BIA decisions (deferential review for factual findings; Chevron deference to agency interpretations) and denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner is a member of a "particular social group" (PSG) qualifying for asylum | Ascencio-Vanegas: young Salvadoran males morally opposed to gang involvement and subject to forced recruitment form a PSG | Government/BIA: group lacks particularity and social distinction; similar claims previously rejected | Denied — group not a cognizable PSG under precedent |
| Whether petitioner was persecuted or has a well-founded fear based on political opinion (anti-gang/anti-corruption) | Ascencio-Vanegas: targeted for anti-gang/anti-corruption views | Government/BIA: evidence does not show persecution motivated by political opinion; gang criminal motives predominate | Denied — no compelled finding of persecution on political grounds |
| Withholding of removal (clear probability standard) | Ascencio-Vanegas: likelihood of future persecution on protected ground | Government/BIA: petitioner failed to meet asylum burden, thus cannot meet the more stringent withholding standard | Denied — substantial evidence supports finding petitioner did not meet "clear probability" standard |
| CAT relief (torture by or with acquiescence of public official) | Ascencio-Vanegas: threats and country conditions + alleged gang ties to corrupt politicians make torture more likely than not | Government/BIA: evidence insufficient to show torture more likely than not or nexus to public officials | Denied — substantial evidence does not compel CAT relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2007) (review of BIA and IJ decisions)
- Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (young men recruited by gangs not necessarily a PSG)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deference to reasonable agency statutory interpretations)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (criminal motive vitiates political-motive asylum claim)
- Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 1994) (withholding of removal requires a clear probability of persecution)
- Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2015) (CAT requires nexus to public official acquiescence)
- Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885 (5th Cir. 2014) (CAT nexus and evidence standards)