Cruz v. Sessions, 681 F. App'x 69

Background

Petitioner Juan Carlos Cruz, a Guatemalan national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on a 2011 massacre at a ranch in Petén province allegedly owned by his brother.
Cruz claimed the Zetas committed the massacre and that he and his family fled with police assistance; he submitted news articles, an unsworn letter from a purported brother, and later birth certificates on appeal.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief for failure to corroborate material aspects of Cruz’s claim, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed; Cruz petitioned this Court for review.
The agency found Cruz did not sufficiently establish his relationship to the ranch owners or provide reliable documentary proof of family ownership or residency at the ranch.
Country‑condition evidence showed lawlessness and official corruption in Petén, suggesting possible difficulty obtaining records, but Cruz did not provide affidavits from family or adequate explanation for missing corroboration.
The IJ/BIA also found Cruz failed to meet the CAT standard of likelihood of torture with government acquiescence; the Second Circuit denied the petition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cruz sufficiently corroborated his account of the massacre and his relationship to the ranch owners	Cruz argued police assistance and regional lawlessness made documentary corroboration difficult; submitted news articles, an unsworn letter, and later birth certificates	Government argued Cruz failed to produce reliable, material corroboration (property records, family affidavits) and the submitted documents were unreliable or non‑material	Court held the agency reasonably found corroboration lacking; substantial evidence supports denial of asylum and withholding
Whether the agency erred in requiring corroboration or in assessing availability of evidence	Cruz argued requested evidence was not reasonably available given Petén conditions and his circumstances	Government argued records and family affidavits were reasonably obtainable and Cruz did not adequately explain their absence	Court held agency properly identified missing evidence and Cruz did not compel a conclusion that evidence was unavailable
Whether the IJ/BIA should have credited the unsworn letter and post‑hoc birth certificates	Cruz relied on an unsworn letter from a purported brother and later-submitted birth certificates to establish family ties to ranch	Government noted the letter contained factual errors and the birth certificates did not prove ranch ownership or relationship to the reported owner	Court deferred to agency’s weight assessment and found the documents insufficient and unreliable
Whether Cruz established eligibility for CAT protection	Cruz argued risk of torture on return based on past attack and country conditions	Government argued Cruz failed to show government would acquiesce to torture or that torture was more likely than not	Court held Cruz did not satisfy CAT standard; relief denied

Key Cases Cited

Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing IJ and BIA decisions jointly in certain circumstances)
Kyaw Zwar Tun v. U.S. I.N.S., 445 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2006) (substantial-evidence review of corroboration and factual findings)
Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2009) (failure to corroborate can by itself support denial of asylum)
Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (deference to agency’s evaluation of documentary evidence weight)
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (applicant’s explanations must be compelling to overcome adverse findings)