Carlos Mayorga-Rosa v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, 888 F.3d 379

Background

Mayorga-Rosa, a Guatemalan national who entered the U.S. illegally, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after refusing to distribute drugs and fearing retribution from a man (Rivera) who allegedly arranged his cousin’s 2013 murder.
He testified he believed he was the intended target and fears future violence if returned to Guatemala.
At the immigration hearing he did not formally propose a precise “particular social group”; the IJ inferred a group related to refusing drug trafficking or "speaking out of turn." The IJ denied relief and the BIA dismissed his appeal.
Mayorga-Rosa later relied on BIA guidance (W-Y-C-) to argue the IJ should have sought clarification of his proposed social group; he also argued the IJ/BIA failed to make required findings under M-E-V-G- regarding immutability and social distinction.
The BIA concluded the inferred group was not defined with particularity (too amorphous/overbroad) and therefore not a cognizable particular social group; the court treated other alleged errors as harmless because Mayorga-Rosa failed to establish a protected ground.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IJ should have sought clarification of proposed social group under W-Y-C-	Mayorga-Rosa: IJ should have asked clarifying questions when the group delineation was unclear	Government/BIA: W-Y-C- requires clarification only where an applicant has actually proposed a group whose exact delineation is unclear; Mayorga-Rosa never met that burden	Court: No error — applicant failed to propose a group so IJ had no duty to seek clarification
Whether IJ/BIA failed to make fact findings required by M-E-V-G- (immutability, social distinction)	Mayorga-Rosa: M-E-V-G- requires explicit, record-based findings on immutability and social perception	Government/BIA: Applicant bears burden to present evidence; M-E-V-G- does not compel separate express findings on every element	Court: No remand; IJ considered the issues sufficiently and applicant did not carry burden
Whether the proposed social group is defined with particularity	Mayorga-Rosa: Group (those who refuse/"speak out of turn" re: gang/drug recruitment) is sufficiently particular	BIA: Proposed group is amorphous/overbroad (indeterminate boundaries); inclusion of broad criteria makes it not particular	Court: Held group not defined with particularity; BIA’s reasons valid and harmless inaccuracies do not require remand
Whether BIA/IJ improperly fact-found or imposed a rule that fear of gangs can never form a social group	Mayorga-Rosa: BIA/IJ treated gang-fear victims categorically as not a group; engaged in impermissible fact-finding	Government/BIA: Decisions summarized precedent showing on these facts gang-related groups were not cognizable; no categorical ban	Court: No reversible error; prior precedent supports conclusion and any fact-finding error is harmless because no protected ground established

Key Cases Cited

Marroquin-Ochoma v. Holder, 574 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 2009) (framework for asylum showing based on protected ground)
Quinonez-Perez v. Holder, 635 F.3d 342 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for withholding of removal)
Malonga v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 546 (8th Cir. 2008) (comparative standards for asylum vs withholding)
De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375 (8th Cir. 2013) (standards of review for agency findings)
R.K.N. v. Holder, 701 F.3d 535 (8th Cir. 2012) (harmless-error principle in immigration appeals)
Ngugi v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2016) (elements for particular social group analysis)
Liu v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 13 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 1994) (standard for sufficiency of administrative decisions)
Juarez Chilel v. Holder, 779 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2015) (gang-resistance claims not cognizable on those facts)
Gaitan v. Holder, 671 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 2012) (refusing gang membership not a cognizable social group on facts)
Constanza v. Holder, 647 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2011) (groups "resistant to gang violence" too diffuse to be particular)

The petition for review is denied.