Escobar v. Holder, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22001

Escobar, a Guatemalan citizen, arrived in the United States in 1989 and applied for asylum four years later, alleging political persecution after police accused him of guerrilla sympathy.
In 2006, during removal proceedings, Escobar updated his claim to say he fled Guatemala due to fear of guerrilla recruitment, including incidents where guerrillas allegedly bombed his father’s bus and robbed his mother.
The IJ found Escobar credible but concluded the incidents did not establish asylum or other relief based on protected grounds.
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, adopting the IJ’s rationale without change.
Escobar argued a past persecution based on political opinion and sought withholding of removal and protection under the CAT; he also proposed a distinct social group of Guatemalan nationals repatriated from the United States.
The court held that the record shows no persecution targeted at Escobar or his family for political opinions, and rejected the social-group theory as not constituting persecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether past persecution based on protected grounds was established	Escobar relies on political opinion; past harm showed by guerrilla activity.	Incidents were not targeted for political grounds; no individual persecution established.	No past persecution established; asylum denied on this basis.
Whether the social group of repatriated Guatemalans qualifies as a protected group	Repudiates wealth-based targeting as a non-immutable trait; group differs from Sicaju-Diaz.	Wealth-based targeting is not protected; cannot form a cognizable social group under INA.	Rejected; not persecution based on protected ground.
Whether Escobar is eligible for withholding of removal or CAT protection	Past persecution presumption supports withholding and CAT relief as warranted by risk.	Greater likelihood of persecution required; no torture risk shown.	Both withholding and CAT relief denied.

Seng v. Holder, 584 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2009) (review of IJ rationale; concedes deference to factual findings)
Lobo v. Holder, 684 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2012) (limits deference on questions of law and standard of review)
INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (U.S. 2002) (peace agreement and end to armed conflict reduce persecution risk)
Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 342 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2003) (harm to family alone not enough for individual persecution)
Maryam v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2005) (widespread violence not equal to protected-ground persecution)
Sicaju-Diaz v. Holder, 663 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (wealth-based targeting in a crime-prone society not persecution as a social group)
Lopez Perez v. Holder, 587 F.3d 456 (1st Cir. 2009) (solicitous analysis of fear of persecution and standard for asylum)
Gilca v. Holder, 680 F.3d 109 (1st Cir. 2012) (objective reasonableness of fear required)