27 I. & N. Dec. 767
BIA2020Background
- Respondent is a Guatemalan national whose family operated a roughly 2 km² farm in El Progreso; respondent inherited legal title after his father's death.
- In 2007–2008 a local drug cartel (the “Cuaches/Quaches”) threatened the family to force them to cultivate marijuana; respondent’s father and others connected to the family were killed and the family later abandoned the land.
- Respondent left Guatemala in 2008, entered the U.S. in 2009, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- On remand the respondent advanced proposed particular social groups: (1) landowners; (2) landowners who resist drug cartels; and (3) members of his family.
- The Immigration Judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, holding the proposed groups were not valid particular social groups, nexus to a protected ground was lacking, and CAT protection was not established; voluntary departure was reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Respondent's Argument | DHS/Immigration Judge's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether landownership alone constitutes a "particular social group" | Landownership is an immutable, identifiable characteristic making respondent part of a cognizable group | Landownership alone can be changed or abandoned and is amorphous; record lacks evidence landowners are socially distinct in El Progreso | Landownership alone does not establish a valid particular social group on this record |
| Whether "landowners who resist drug cartels" is a valid particular social group | A subset defined by resistance is particular and socially distinct because cartels target those who oppose them | Group is vague (no clear scope of resistance/motivation) and could cover broad swaths vulnerable to criminal violence | Group lacks particularity and social distinctness; not a valid particular social group |
| Nexus: whether cartel harm was "on account of" group membership | Cartel targeted respondent and family because they owned land and resisted | Evidence shows cartel wanted the land itself (to cultivate drugs); motive was theft/territorial control, not animus toward landowners or family membership | No nexus shown; harm was motivated by greed/territoriality, not protected ground |
| Convention Against Torture claim | Title on the land exposes respondent to torture by cartel anywhere in Guatemala | Claim is speculative; respondent has not shown he intends to reclaim/exercise title or that cartel maintains continuing interest in locating/torturing him | CAT protection not established because proposed chain of events is speculative and unlikely |
Key Cases Cited
- Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) (adopts three-part test for particular social group: immutability, particularity, social distinction)
- Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) (upholds a landowner-based group where record showed targeted, distinguished landowners)
- Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (criminal acts motivated by theft do not establish nexus to a protected ground)
- Ruiz-Escobar v. Sessions, 881 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 2018) (upholds inference that traffickers’ interest ended once they obtained land)
- Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (withholding requires showing it is more likely than not that a protected ground will be a reason for persecution)
- Xiao Fei Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (CAT claim cannot rest on highly speculative chains of events)
- Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2010) (lack of harm to similarly situated family members weakens future fear of persecution)