Fatima Fuentes v. William P. Barr, 969 F.3d 865

Fuentes and her minor son presented for admission at Douglass, AZ in March 2016, were placed in removal proceedings, and conceded removability for lacking valid entry documents.
Fuentes applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; Emmanuel was a derivative asylum applicant only.
Fuentes testified MS-13 in her hometown extorted her (ten payments of $100 between Feb–Dec 2014) and threatened violence unless she paid; she was not physically harmed and did not report threats to police out of fear.
Fuentes alleged persecution based on membership in three particular social groups: the Fuentes family, Salvadoran female heads of household, and vulnerable Salvadoran females; she also argued police corruption and gendered targeting supported her claims.
The IJ found no past persecution (threats lacked immediacy and involved no physical injury), no nexus to a protected ground, and that Fuentes failed to show the government was unable or unwilling to protect her; the IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
The Board affirmed, holding the harms reflected general crime/violence rather than persecution on account of a protected ground; the Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review.

Issue	Fuentes' Argument	Government/Board Argument	Held
Whether Fuentes suffered past persecution	Extortion and threats by MS-13 amounted to past persecution	Threats lacked immediacy and physical injury; were extortion, not persecution	No; substantial evidence supports IJ/Board that harms did not rise to persecution
Whether harm was on account of membership in a particular social group	Persecuted as member of Fuentes family; as a female head of household; and as a vulnerable Salvadoran female	Persecutors targeted her for money, not family status; proposed groups lack particularity/social distinction	No; family nexus insufficient and other proposed groups are not cognizable
Whether Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to protect	Police corruption and pattern of gendered violence meant police would not protect her	Country reports show active anti-gang measures; Fuentes never reported threats so police were not given a chance	No; IJ reasonably weighed failure to report and country evidence to find no showing of government inability/unwillingness
Whether Fuentes has well‑founded fear of future persecution or is entitled to withholding/CAT relief	Generalized fear of gangs and gendered violence shows future risk	General crime/violence evidence insufficient; no nexus to protected ground; CAT claim speculative (and not contested on appeal)	No; without past persecution or nexus, asylum/withholding fail; CAT issue waived on appeal

Rodriguez-Mercado v. Lynch, 809 F.3d 415 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review when Board adopts IJ findings but adds reasoning)
Ramirez v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2018) (substantial evidence review for asylum, withholding, and CAT)
Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2008) (past persecution establishes presumption of well-founded fear)
Rivas v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 537 (8th Cir. 2018) (requirements for particular social group: immutability, particularity, social distinction)
De Guevara v. Barr, 919 F.3d 538 (8th Cir. 2019) (Salvadoran female heads of household held not cognizable PSOG for lack of particularity/social distinction)
Setiadi v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2006) (generalized fear of crime is insufficient; fear must be particularized)