563 F. App'x 466
6th Cir.2014Background
- Renteria-Cortes, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. illegally in 2000, conceded removability, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection claiming fear of drug-related violence if returned.
- He and his wife testified that traffickers view returnees from the U.S. as wealthy and therefore threaten, kidnap, torture, or kill them and their family.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Renteria-Cortes credible but based largely on hearsay, denied asylum as untimely, denied withholding of removal and CAT relief for failure to meet the applicable burdens, and granted 30 days voluntary departure.
- The BIA affirmed, concluding Renteria-Cortes’s asylum claim was untimely, that he failed to show membership in a cognizable particular social group or sufficient corroboration for his claims, and that he did not show a likelihood of torture by state actors.
- Renteria-Cortes petitioned for review only as to withholding of removal and CAT relief; the Sixth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Renteria-Cortes belongs to a cognizable particular social group (returnees perceived as wealthy) | Group: Mexicans returning from the U.S. perceived as wealthy face persecution | Government: Perceived wealth is not a socially visible, cognizable group; threats are general criminality | Held: Not a cognizable group; social-visibility requirement unmet |
| Whether petitioner provided sufficient corroboration for factual claims based largely on hearsay | Renteria-Cortes: Family attempted to send corroborating letters/newspapers; corroboration was unavailable | Government: Expectation of corroboration where reasonable; record lacks required evidence | Held: Substantial evidence supports BIA that corroboration was lacking and evidence was otherwise available |
| Whether petitioner met the “more likely than not” standard for withholding of removal | Renteria-Cortes: Likely to face future persecution on account of group membership if returned | Government: No showing of persecution on account of protected ground; general crime/economic violence insufficient | Held: Petition denied—failed to show persecution on account of protected ground or meet burden for withholding |
| Whether petitioner is eligible for CAT protection (likelihood of torture by state actors) | Renteria-Cortes: Adopts withholding arguments; past harm alleged as persecution | Government: No particularized threat of torture nor state involvement/acquiescence shown | Held: Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief—no likely torture by state actors |
Key Cases Cited
- Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing BIA decisions when BIA issues separate opinion)
- Dieng v. Holder, 698 F.3d 866 (6th Cir. 2012) (substantial-evidence standard for factual findings)
- Umana-Ramos v. Holder, 724 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2013) (social-visibility requirement for particular social group)
- Lopez-Castro v. Holder, 577 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2009) (perceived wealth of returnees not a protected group)
- Koliada v. INS, 259 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2001) (generalized fear of crime/economic problems not persecution)
- Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971 (6th Cir. 2009) (corroboration required where reasonable expectations of evidence exist)
- Dorosh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 379 (6th Cir. 2004) (absence of corroboration can defeat an applicant’s burden)
- Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533 (6th Cir. 2003) (CAT requires torture to be inflicted or acquiesced in by state actors)
- Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting limits or modifications to prior precedent)