Costa v. Holder, Jr.
733 F.3d 13
1st Cir.2013Background
- Costa, a Brazilian citizen, entered the United States illegally in 2003 and later became an ICE informant identifying fraudulent document sellers; she sought asylum relief after threats tied to her cooperation.
- She faced threats and harassment in the United States and Brazil related to her ICE work, prompting relocation and telephone-number changes.
- ICE arrested Costa in September 2008 and reinstated a prior removal order, which triggered her request for withholding of removal and CAT relief.
- Costa claimed persecution in Brazil based on membership in a particular social group (former ICE informants) and sought protection against torture under CAT.
- The IJ denied both withholding of removal and CAT relief, the BIA affirmed, and Costa pursued review in the First Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Withholding eligibility based on a social group | Costa cites social group status as former ICE informants. | The persecution was personal vendetta, not tied to a protected group; informants lack social visibility. | Affirmed: persecution found to be personal, not based on a social group. |
| CAT relief and government involvement requirement | Two rogue police officers acting with implicit state authority could constitute official action. | Actions were not by the state; burden not met. | Affirmed: no more likely than not torture by or with the acquiescence of a public official. |
| Standards of review and evidentiary sufficiency | BIA/IJ findings should be reversed for lack of state protection evidence. | Defer to BIA/IJ factual determinations under substantial evidence standard. | Court defers to BIA/IJ findings; record does not compel reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weng v. Holder, 593 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2010) (review of agency findings when BIA adopts IJ opinion; deferential standard of review for factual matters)
- Cuko v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2008) (deference to BIA legal interpretations within agency framework)
- Rotinsulu v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2008) (deferential review of BIA factual determinations; clear probability standard guidance)
- Arévalo-Girón v. Holder, 667 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2012) (standard for reversing BIA factual findings; more evidence required to compel reversal)
- Romilus v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (CAT burden-shifting standard; public official involvement interpreted)