Claudia Sibrian de Alfaro v. Jefferson Sessions III
704 F. App'x 265
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Claudia Patricia Sibrian de Alfaro, a Salvadoran national, appealed the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief by the immigration judge; the BIA dismissed her appeal.
- Sibrian’s claims were based on fear of persecution and torture by private actors in El Salvador.
- To prevail, she needed to show the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to protect her from private persecutors (for asylum/withholding).
- For CAT relief she had to show it was more likely than not she would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of public officials.
- The agency found she failed to prove the government would be unable/unwilling to protect her or would acquiesce to torture; the Fourth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and legal error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sibrian established the government was unable/unwilling to control private persecutors (asylum/withholding) | Sibrian argued private actors targeted her and the Salvadoran government could not/would not protect her | Government argued record evidence did not show inability or unwillingness of Salvadoran authorities to control persecutors | Held: Substantial evidence supports agency finding Sibrian failed to show government inability/unwillingness; asylum and withholding denied |
| Whether Sibrian met the higher burden for withholding of removal | Sibrian contended same facts sufficed for withholding | Government stressed withholding requires a higher showing of likelihood of persecution | Held: Because asylum was not established, withholding—requiring a higher standard—also fails |
| Whether Sibrian established eligibility for CAT protection (acquiescence by officials) | Sibrian argued she would likely be tortured and officials would acquiesce or be willfully blind | Government argued record lacks proof officials would consent or acquiesce to torture | Held: Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief; petitioner failed to show more likely than not torture with official acquiescence |
| Standard of review / legal errors claimed | Sibrian implicitly challenged factual findings and legal conclusions below | Government urged deference to BIA and IJ under substantial-evidence and precedent | Held: Court applied de novo review to legal issues and substantial-evidence to facts, found no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (substantial-evidence standard for asylum findings)
- Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685 (deference to BIA interpretations)
- Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316 (review of agency factfinding)
- Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594 (agency asylum denial conclusive absent abuse)
- Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190 (government inability/unwillingness to control private persecutors requirement)
- M.A. v. INS, 858 F.2d 210 (asylum may be shown by government unwilling/unable to control offenders)
- Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (factual question whether government can control private actors)
- Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361 (withholding of removal requires higher burden than asylum)
- Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 243 (CAT prima facie showing requires torture by or with acquiescence of officials)