Crespin-Valladares v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2995
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Crespin-Valladares and his family, El Salvador citizens, seek asylum based on family ties to prosecutorial witnesses against MS-13 in El Salvador.
- An IJ granted asylum to Crespin and derivatives; the BIA vacated and ordered removal, denying asylum.
- BIA concluded that the proposed social group—family members of those who actively oppose gangs by testifying—lacked particularity/visibility and that Crespin faced only threats, not persecution.
- IJ found Crespin’s fear well-founded and that government efforts to control gangs had failed; BIA reversed on nexus and government protection grounds.
- Crespins appealed; the government sought remand, which this court denied, and the court proceeded to review the BIA’s removal order.
- The Fourth Circuit grants the petition for review, remands to the BIA to reassess nexus and state protection findings under correct standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether family members of prosecutorial witnesses can constitute a particular social group | Crespin family fits immutable, well-defined social group boundaries | BIA held group not sufficiently particular/visible | Yes; family ties qualify as a particular social group under Acosta framework |
| Whether Crespin demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution | Evidence shows targeted death threats and MS-13’s pattern against families | BIA found threats generalized and not well-founded | Yes; fear is well-founded given specific threats and pattern of retaliation |
| Whether the nexus between persecution and Crespin’s family ties was properly determined | IJ found nexus to family ties; BIA erred in de novo review denying it | BIA claims no nexus based on its own review | Remand to assess nexus under correct standard of review |
| Whether the government’s ability or willingness to protect Crespin was properly evaluated | BIA failed to properly review IJ’s finding of government incapacity/ unwillingness | Government allegedly focusing on suppression of gang violence | Remand for clear-error review of state protection finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1995) (deportation orders review should proceed despite later reconsideration filings)
- INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1987) (well-founded fear standard allows less-than-likelihood threshold)
- Chenery Corp. v. SEC, 332 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1947) (agencies cannot rely on post hoc rationales; must rely on grounds stated)
- Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2005) (threats to family relevant to well-founded fear analysis)
- Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2011) (affirming Chevron deference to BIA interpretation of particular social group)
- Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631 (4th Cir. 2008) (review of factual nexus and IJ findings; deference to IJ findings)