Edilberto Antonio-Fuentes v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
764 F.3d 902
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Fuentes, a Salvadoran national, entered the U.S. in 2008 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief in 2011 after three gang-related incidents affecting him and his family.
- Incidents: cousin (former gang member) was murdered by gang members; Fuentes was threatened on a bus; another cousin’s business was extorted causing relocation. Fuentes testified he opposes gangs and fears return because he might be perceived as wealthy.
- The immigration judge found Fuentes credible but denied asylum as untimely, and denied withholding and CAT relief for failure to show membership in a cognizable particular social group, political opinion basis, or likelihood of torture or state complicity.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, concluding proposed social groups lacked particularity and social visibility and that Fuentes waived a political-opinion claim by not presenting it before the IJ. The Board also upheld the CAT denial.
- Fuentes petitioned for review; the Eighth Circuit reviews factual findings for substantial evidence and adopted IJ reasoning where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fuentes identified a "particular social group" for withholding of removal | Men in El Salvador who fear gang violence due to a family member who was a former gang member constitute a particular social group | Proposed groups lack the required particularity and social visibility under Matter of S–E–G– and this court’s precedents | Denied — proposed groups are not cognizable; lack particularity/social visibility (Constanza, Matul‑Hernandez) |
| Whether Fuentes’s opposition to gangs is a protected political opinion | Fuentes contends his opposition to gangs amounts to a political opinion because gangs function as a "shadow government" | He failed to present or develop a political‑opinion claim before the IJ, so it was waived | Denied — claim waived for failure to raise before the IJ; IJ reasonably found no elucidated political opinion |
| Whether Fuentes is entitled to CAT relief because police are complicit or willfully blind | Fuentes argues Salvadoran police are corrupt and complicit, creating a likelihood of torture if returned | IJ/BIA found insufficient evidence of police participation or condonation of gang torture | Denied — substantial evidence supports conclusion police complicity/torture risk not shown (distinguished from Ramirez‑Peyro) |
| Whether administrative findings are supported by substantial evidence | Fuentes asserts record compels contrary factual findings on targeting, police complicity, and visibility of his group | Government defends IJ/BIA credibility and factual determinations as supported by record | Denied — court will not overturn factual findings absent compelling contrary evidence; substantial evidence supports BIA/IJ conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- Matul‑Hernandez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 707 (8th Cir.) (court precedent on particular social group analysis)
- Constanza v. Holder, 647 F.3d 749 (8th Cir.) (family‑based groups lacked particularity and visibility)
- Gaitan v. Holder, 671 F.3d 678 (8th Cir.) (affirming BIA definition of particular social group)
- Menendez‑Donis v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for BIA factual findings)
- INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (standard on asylum/withholding related review issues)
- Falaja v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2005) (treatment of combined IJ and BIA reasoning)
- Pinos‑Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 436 (8th Cir. 2008) (enforcement of BIA waiver rules)
- Ramirez‑Peyro v. Holder, 574 F.3d 893 (8th Cir.) (contrast case showing police complicity in targeting leading to CAT relief)