Edgar Cordoba v. William Barr
962 F.3d 479
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background:
- Edgar Rene Cordoba, a Colombian national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, claiming FARC persecuted him and his family because they were "wealthy landowners."
- The Ninth Circuit in Cordoba v. Holder previously affirmed denial of CAT and political-opinion asylum claims but remanded for reconsideration whether "wealthy landowners" is a cognizable particular social group under Henriquez-Rivas.
- On remand the IJ again denied relief; the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision, concluding Cordoba failed to show his proposed group met the BIA’s particular social group factors (immutability, particularity, social distinction).
- The agency and the court focused on the social-distinction requirement, finding Cordoba’s evidence largely showed only FARC’s perception, not that Colombian society generally recognizes wealthy landowners as a distinct group.
- Because the court affirmed that the group is not cognizable, it did not reach the nexus element; withholding of removal was also denied since its standard is more stringent than asylum’s.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "wealthy landowners" in Colombia is a cognizable particular social group | Cordoba: wealthy landowners share immutable/common characteristics and are persecuted by FARC | BIA/Barr: group lacks particularity and social distinction; persecution alone cannot define a group | Denied—group not cognizable for lack of particularity/social distinction (primarily social distinction) |
| Whether persecutors' perception (FARC) can establish social distinction | Cordoba: FARC’s targeting shows society recognizes the group | BIA/Barr: persecutor perception insufficient; must show society generally perceives the group as distinct | Held: Persecutor perception alone is insufficient; applicant must show societal recognition |
| Whether denial of asylum requires denying withholding of removal | Cordoba: withholding should be granted on same facts | BIA/Barr: withholding has a higher standard than asylum; asylum failure forecloses withholding | Held: Withholding denied—more stringent standard; no need to decide nexus |
Key Cases Cited
- Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) (prior Ninth Circuit decision remanding social-group issue)
- Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (framework on persecutor perception and social-group analysis)
- Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) (deference to BIA’s social-distinction requirement)
- Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding particular social group is a question of law)
- Mendoza-Pablo v. Holder, 667 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 2012) (standards of review for mixed questions)
- Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2011) (reviewing both IJ and BIA decisions)
- Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2010) (nexus and related standards)
- Al-Harbi v. I.N.S., 242 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining higher standard for withholding of removal)