Christian Munoz-Mejia v. Merrick Garland
20-72598
| 9th Cir. | Jun 14, 2021Background
- Petitioner Christian Moises Munoz-Mejia, a Honduran national, first entered the U.S. illegally in Aug. 2007, was removed, illegally reentered in Mar. 2012, and had a prior removal order reinstated by DHS in July 2020.
- Munoz-Mejia sought withholding of removal and CAT relief under the reinstated removal order, claiming a reasonable fear of persecution/torture if returned to Honduras.
- He asserted two protected grounds: (1) his Christian religion (he was insulted by gang members after they asked him to join) and (2) membership in the social group "young Honduran males who resist gang recruitment," arguing gangs persistently sought to recruit him.
- The IJ found Munoz-Mejia failed to show persecution on account of a protected ground and failed to show torture by or with acquiescence of state actors; Munoz-Mejia offered only general allegations that police were ineffective and hearsay that police "don’t do anything."
- The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review, concluding substantial evidence and controlling precedent supported the IJ’s findings; a stay of removal was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Munoz-Mejia established a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of religion | Munoz-Mejia: gang insults tied to his Christian faith show persecution risk | Govt: insults occurred only after recruitment attempts and no nexus to religion; no harm or threats | Denied — no reasonable possibility of persecution on account of religion |
| Whether "young Honduran males who resist gang recruitment" is a cognizable social group with nexus to persecution | Munoz-Mejia: persistent forced recruitment targeted him as part of that group | Govt: group is amorphous and lacks particularity/social visibility; harassment by criminals lacks protected-ground nexus | Denied — group not shown to meet requirements or establish nexus |
| Whether Munoz-Mejia showed likelihood of torture with state acquiescence under CAT | Munoz-Mejia: police are unable/unwilling to stop gangs; general neighborhood reports show acquiescence | Govt: no evidence police were alerted, refused to act, or colluded; general ineffectiveness insufficient | Denied — no evidence of state acquiescence to torture |
Key Cases Cited
- Alvarado-Herrera v. Garland, 993 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2021) (failure to show harm "on account of" a protected ground defeats claim)
- Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (desire to be free from criminal harassment lacks nexus to a protected ground)
- Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2008) (young men resisting gangs not sufficiently particular or socially visible to form a PSG)
- Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (clarifies PSG particularity and nexus principles)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (motive is critical; claimant must provide direct or circumstantial evidence linking harm to protected ground)
- Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2011) (must show persecution was or will be "on account of" membership in the claimed group)
- Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2014) (acquiescence requires official awareness and breach of duty to intervene)
- Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2016) (general government ineffectiveness does not prove acquiescence in torture)