Edgar Cordoba v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
726 F.3d 1106
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Two consolidated petitions: Cordoba (Colombia) and Medina-Gonzalez (Mexico) sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after attacks/extortion/kidnapping tied to their status as landowners/wealthy.
- Cordoba: long-standing family landholdings and businesses in Cali; credible testimony of repeated FARC threats, extortion demands, kidnappings of family members, and threats leading to flight to U.S.; BIA held his proposed group (wealthy, educated landowners/businesspeople) was not a "particular social group."
- Medina-Gonzalez: heir to family land in Zacatecas; abducted and brutally tortured by cartel (Zetas), ransom paid by his U.S.-based brother; evidence of police complicity at checkpoints; BIA found his proposed group (landowners in Mexico) lacked particularity/social visibility and denied CAT relief for lack of official "awareness."
- Ninth Circuit reviewed legal/mixed questions de novo and found the BIA decided before the court’s en banc Henriquez-Rivas clarification of the "particular social group" test.
- Court concluded Henriquez-Rivas materially affects social-visibility and breadth analyses (rejecting prior cases that narrowly treated group breadth), and Tapia Madrigal bears on the CAT official-awareness standard.
- Result: petitions granted in part and both cases remanded to BIA to reconsider asylum/withholding determinations under Henriquez-Rivas; Medina-Gonzalez’s CAT claim also remanded in light of Tapia Madrigal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether landownership/wealth or similar traits can define a "particular social group" for asylum | Cordoba/Medina-Gonzalez: landownership (and related descriptors) is an immutable/recognized trait and persecutors target landowners, so it defines a particular social group | BIA/Gov: proposed groups are too broad, lack particularity and social visibility; adding "wealthy/educated" makes groups invalid | BIA erred to the extent it relied on pre-Henriquez-Rivas standards; remand for BIA to reevaluate under Henriquez-Rivas |
| Proper scope of the "social visibility" inquiry for particular social group | Petitioners: visibility can be shown by community or persecutor perceptions; on-sight visibility is not required | BIA: required groups to be "perceived by society" in a tight, on-sight sense and rejected groups as not visibly discrete | Court clarified social visibility need not be on-sight; persecutor perceptions are highly relevant; remand for reconsideration |
| Whether group breadth/diversity defeats "particularity" | Petitioners: diversity of other attributes does not defeat a group if persecutor perceives a defining characteristic (e.g., landownership) | BIA relied on precedents treating broad/diverse groups as non-cognizable | Henriquez-Rivas overruled narrow breadth precedents (Velasco-Cervantes, Soriano); diversity alone is not dispositive; remand |
| CAT claim — whether police/officials were "aware" (acquiescence) of torture/persecution | Medina-Gonzalez: checkpoints and police contacts show official awareness/collusion; high corruption in Mexico supports CAT nexus | BIA: no proof police knew he was captive or knew captors; denied CAT relief | Court remanded: Tapia Madrigal lowers threshold for awareness (need not know specific incident); record supports reconsideration of CAT claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (clarifies social-visibility and rejects narrow breadth analysis for particular social groups)
- Tapia Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2013) (official awareness for CAT need not be knowledge of a specific tortious incident; contextual/ systemic corruption relevant)
- Velasco-Cervantes v. Holder, 593 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2010) (prior precedent treating broad groups as non-cognizable; overruled in part by Henriquez-Rivas)
- Tapiero de Orejuela v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2005) (recognized landowning/wealthy class in Colombia as a cognizable social group)
- Brand X Internet Servs. v. FCC, 545 U.S. 967 (U.S. 2005) (agency reversals require adequate explanation where Chevron deference applies)
- INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (U.S. 2002) (remands to agency appropriate for fact-specific determinations)