Enamorado-Rodriguez v. Barr
941 F.3d 589
1st Cir.2019Background
- Petitioner Darlin Enamorado, a Honduran who entered the U.S. as a minor, testified credibly that his paternal grandparents repeatedly physically and verbally abused him from ages ~6–15 and that they treated him abusively because they "hated his mother."
- An Immigration Judge (IJ) found the abuse rose to past persecution but denied asylum/withholding, concluding petitioner failed to show nexus to a protected ground (family membership) and relied on a perceived alternative motive (conception of masculinity); the IJ also discounted the mother’s sworn declaration because she did not testify live.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, mischaracterized parts of the testimony, and emphasized lack of corroboration.
- The First Circuit vacated the BIA’s denial as to the family-membership particular social group (PSG) claim, found legal errors in the nexus/corroboration analysis, denied relief as to petitioner’s alternate PSG theories and CAT claim, and remanded for further proceedings on the family-membership claim.
- The panel split: majority remanded for correct mixed-motive and corroboration analysis; a concurring judge would have found the record compelled a nexus finding and would limit remand to government protection issues.
Issues
| Issue | Enamorado's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ/BIA applied correct "mixed-motive" (at least one central reason) nexus standard for family-membership PSG | BIA/IJ failed to apply mixed-motive rule; credible testimony shows grandparents abused him because they hated his mother, so family membership was at least one central reason | Grandparents’ motivation included non-protected factors (masculinity, disciplinary aims); petitioner’s statements are speculative and insufficient | Court held BIA erred in its nexus analysis (mischaracterized testimony and failed to assess mixed-motive properly); vacated denial and remanded on family-membership claim |
| Whether IJ/BIA improperly required corroboration and improperly discounted mother’s written declaration | IJ erred by putting weight on absence of live testimony without finding mother was reasonably available; no explicit findings that corroboration was reasonably available or unexplained | Petitioner had reasonably available witnesses and did not produce them; corroboration required | Court held IJ/BIA erred: required explicit findings under precedent before denying for lack of corroboration; remanded for proper analysis |
| Cognizability of petitioner’s alternative PSGs (children viewed as property / lacking parental protection; deportees labeled gang members) | These PSGs describe petitioner’s group and are cognizable | Proposed PSGs lack particularity and social distinctness; some are time-limited (childhood) | Court affirmed BIA: alternative PSGs not cognizable; petition denied as to those theories |
| CAT protection (torture by or with acquiescence of government) | Would likely be tortured on return; government would acquiesce or be unable to protect | No evidence of government acquiescence or prior official mistreatment; petitioner never sought police help | Court held denial of CAT relief supported by substantial evidence and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (standard for reviewing agency factfinding)
- Ordonez-Quino v. Holder, 760 F.3d 80 (an asylum applicant need not prove persecutors' exact motivation; mixed-motive analysis)
- Rivera-Coca v. Lynch, 844 F.3d 374 (credible testimony can suffice for asylum absent need for corroboration)
- Soeung v. Holder, 677 F.3d 484 (agency must make explicit findings before penalizing failure to produce corroboration)
- Mukamusoni v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 110 (corroboration may be required when testimony is weak)
- Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (protected ground need not be majority motive; "at least one central reason")
- Mendez-Barrera v. Holder, 602 F.3d 21 (PSG must have sufficient particularity)
- Cantarero v. Holder, 734 F.3d 82 (social distinctness requirement for PSG)
- Rosales Justo v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 154 (government unwilling or unable to protect standard)
- Laurent v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 59 (when BIA adopts IJ findings, they become the BIA’s findings)