Escobar-Hernandez v. Barr, 940 F.3d 1358

Petitioner Santos Raul Escobar‑Hernandez, a native of El Salvador, credibly testified that he was assaulted multiple times after two men saw graffiti critical of a political party on a fence by his home.
One assailant, “Nelson,” accused Escobar of responsibility for the graffiti, demanded removal, and threatened to kill him when Escobar said he could not pay; Escobar was injured and required medical treatment.
Escobar reported the assaults to police, who told him they were taking the matter seriously; he left El Salvador less than two months after the first assault and sought asylum in the U.S.
Escobar argued the attacks and threats were persecution based on an imputed political opinion and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection (claiming likely torture with government acquiescence if returned).
The Immigration Judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (single‑member brief affirmance) upheld the denial, finding no nexus to a protected ground, Escobar’s fear was not objectively reasonable, and no evidence of government connection or acquiescence to Nelson.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence and denied the petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Asylum — past persecution nexus	Escobar: assault and threats were based on Nelson’s imputed political opinion	BIA: attack was a personal dispute over graffiti, not on account of political opinion	Denied — substantial evidence supports lack of nexus; not past persecution
Asylum — well‑founded fear of future persecution	Escobar: credible subjective fear; country violence and Nelson’s threats make fear reasonable	BIA: fear not objectively reasonable — attack dated to past election, Nelson not local or linked to state, no evidence he could follow or harm Escobar elsewhere	Denied — subjective fear credited but not objectively reasonable
Withholding of removal	Escobar: same facts show clear probability of persecution on account of political opinion	BIA: same deficiencies as asylum claim; higher burden unmet	Denied — asylum failure forecloses withholding claim
CAT protection	Escobar: likely torture by Nelson with police/government acquiescence if returned	BIA: no evidence Nelson is connected to government; police acted when report made; pervasive violence alone insufficient	Denied — no substantial evidence of government consent or acquiescence

Htun v. Lynch, 818 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2016) (scope of review and standards for BIA single‑member affirmances; CAT/substantial‑evidence principles)
Xue v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2017) (applying substantial‑evidence review to BIA factual findings)
Karki v. Holder, 715 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2013) (ways to establish refugee status: past persecution, well‑founded fear, or compelling reasons)
Estrada‑Escobar v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 1042 (10th Cir. 2004) (objective/subjective components of well‑founded fear)
Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2013) (pervasive lawlessness alone does not establish persecution on a protected ground)
Rodas‑Orellana v. Holder, 780 F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 2015) (withholding‑of‑removal burden higher than asylum)
Flores‑Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2019) (pervasive country violence insufficient alone for CAT showing)
Herrera‑Garcia v. Barr, 918 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2019) (similar principle regarding CAT and countrywide violence)