Denis Zelaya v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 555
4th Cir.2012Background
- Zelaya, a Honduran citizen, entered the U.S. illegally in 2007 at age 16 and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- IJ credited Zelaya’s credibility and found he faced gang threats but held that his proposed social group was not cognizable for asylum/withholding.
- BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding and denied CAT relief without addressing the key CAT issue.
- Fourth Circuit review upheld denial of asylum/withholding but vacated and remanded CAT for a reasoned explanation, finding the BIA failed to address acquiescence by police.
- Court analyzed Crespin-Valladares and Matter of S-E-G- to evaluate the particular social group and noted the need for a more explicit CAT analysis, ultimately remanding on CAT.
- Zelaya’s asylum and withholding claims remained denied; CAT claim remanded for further explanation by the BIA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zelaya’s proposed social group is a cognizable PSG. | Zelaya argues Crespin-Valladares supports his group. | BIA/Matter of S-E-G- foreclose the group. | Asylum denial affirmed; group not cognizable. |
| Whether asylum/withholding were properly denied based on the PSG finding. | Zelaya’s fear tied to MS-13 recruitment; seeks asylum. | MS-13 opposition is not a PSG; fails immutability/social visibility. | Asylum denied; withholding affirmed. |
| Whether the CAT claim was properly analyzed and decided. | BIA failed to address police acquiescence; CAT merits review. | BIA conducted de novo CAT review but gave minimal reasoning. | CAT claim remanded for a reasoned BIA explanation. |
| Whether the BIA abused its discretion by not providing a reasoned CAT rationale. | BIA ignored critical factual support for acquiescence. | BIA’s CAT rationale adequate as to facts found by IJ. | Remand for a reasoned CAT decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizes group of family members of those opposing gangs can be PSG; discusses particularity and social visibility)
- Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholds BIA’s denial of PSG based on similar lack of particularity)
- Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2011) (opposition to gangs is amorphous; lack of identifiable PSG)
- Gatimi v. Holder, 578 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2009) (social visibility requirement contested in some circuits)
- Tassi v. Holder, 660 F.3d 710 (4th Cir. 2011) (requires reasoned explanation when agency decisions fail to address issues)
- Nken v. Holder, 585 F.3d 818 (4th Cir. 2009) (remand may be appropriate when grounds are not adequately explained)
- Yi Ni v. Holder, 613 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2010) (discusses burden and standard of proof)
- Lin v. Holder, 611 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2010) (CAT standard and necessity of acquiescence analysis)