Carlos Chilel v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
779 F.3d 850
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Carlos Juarez Chilel, a Guatemalan native, entered the U.S. in September 2009 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after being placed in ICE custody in May 2010.
- In Guatemala City in 2008 he was threatened and stabbed by gang members for refusing to join; he reported the incident to police but did not seek medical care or follow up on the investigation.
- He returned to his hometown (San Antonio), where no family members reported being subjected to violence while living in Guatemala; several relatives remain there.
- IJ denied asylum as untimely (application filed November 2010) and denied withholding and CAT relief on the merits; BIA affirmed, finding no changed country conditions, no cognizable social group, and insufficient evidence of government acquiescence for CAT.
- Juarez Chilel appealed, arguing changed circumstances to excuse the one‑year bar, that he was persecuted for refusing gang recruitment and/or as a Mam ethnic member, and that he faces torture if returned; the court denied review and relief.
Issues
| Issue | Juarez Chilel's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of asylum application (1‑year bar) | Changed circumstances excused late filing | No changed circumstances or extraordinary reasons; application untimely | Court lacks jurisdiction to review BIA/IJ factual determination that exceptions do not apply; asylum untimely |
| Withholding of removal — membership in a particular social group: victims who refuse gang recruitment | He suffered past persecution for refusing to join gang; group of those who resist gang recruitment is a cognizable group | Such a group lacks particularity, immutability, and social distinctiveness | Group of persons who refuse gang recruitment is not a particular social group; withholding denied |
| Withholding of removal — Mam ethnic group (raised on appeal) | He speaks Mam and should be protected as an ethnic group | Claim not raised below; administrative remedies not exhausted | Claim unexhausted; court lacks jurisdiction to consider it |
| CAT protection — government acquiescence to gang torture | Gang attack amounted to torture and government acquiesces/willfully blind; risk of future torture | No evidence government willfully acquiesced or intervened; mere ineffective law enforcement insufficient | Insufficient evidence of government acquiescence; CAT relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Osonowo v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 922 (8th Cir.) (standard of review and BIA/IJ review framework)
- Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405 (8th Cir.) (no jurisdiction to review IJ/BIA timeliness exception findings)
- Garcia v. Holder, 746 F.3d 869 (8th Cir.) (CAT standard and government acquiescence/willful blindness analysis)
- Ortiz‑Puentes v. Holder, 662 F.3d 481 (8th Cir.) (refusal‑to‑join‑gang groups lack required particularity/visibility)
- Constanza v. Holder, 647 F.3d 749 (8th Cir.) (social‑group exhaustion and visibility/particularity analysis)
- Manani v. Filip, 552 F.3d 894 (8th Cir.) (distinction between legal questions and discretionary factual findings for jurisdiction)
- Marroquin‑Ochoma v. Holder, 574 F.3d 574 (8th Cir.) (insufficient evidence of government acquiescence where law enforcement is weak but not willfully blind)
- Doe v. Holder, 651 F.3d 824 (8th Cir.) (jurisdictional limits where claim not raised to IJ/BIA)