Edgardo Escobar Pacheco v. Merrick Garland, 20-70084

Petitioner Edgardo Escobar Pacheco sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on past gang violence and his status as a soccer player (and mixed martial arts fighter).
He was attacked and robbed by gang members; during the assault a gang member told him, “I don’t know who you are. I don’t even know you,” undermining a motive tied to his soccer status.
Pacheco is no longer a professional soccer player, and the record contains no evidence he would be recognized and targeted in Honduras on that basis.
The BIA denied all forms of relief; the IJ had also found Pacheco time-barred for asylum, but the BIA affirmed on the merits and did not rely on the time-bar alternative.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence, and it denied the petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Asylum nexus to a particular social group (soccer player)	Pacheco: he was targeted because of his status as a soccer player (and fighter)	Respondent: no evidence persecutors targeted him for that status; attack appears indiscriminate	Denied — substantial evidence that nexus to protected group not shown; gang’s statements and lack of recognition undermine claim
Withholding of removal (nexus; "a reason" standard)	Pacheco: even under the lower standard, past/future harm was on account of his group/status	Respondent: no showing that a protected ground was a reason for persecution	Denied — no nexus established under the less stringent withholding standard
CAT protection (more likely than not tortured by or with government acquiescence)	Pacheco: generalized country conditions and violence in Honduras show risk of torture	Respondent: evidence only shows generalized crime/violence, not likelihood of torture with government acquiescence	Denied — generalized evidence insufficient to show torture more likely than not with state consent or acquiescence
Alternative procedural ground (asylum time-bar)	Pacheco: merits review sought	Respondent: IJ found asylum time-barred	Court: cannot affirm on IJ’s time-bar because BIA decided on the merits; alternative ground not reached

Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2019) (standard of review: legal conclusions de novo; factual findings for substantial evidence)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (applicant must provide evidence of persecutors’ motives to satisfy nexus)
Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2016) (lack of nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of asylum claims)
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (withholding requires that a protected ground be “a reason” for persecution)
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2014) (CAT requires torture by or with consent/acquiescence of public official)
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of countrywide violence is insufficient for CAT relief)