Felipe Gregorio-Ordonez v. Merrick B. Garland, 20-4035

Felipe Gregorio-Ordonez, a Guatemalan national, entered the U.S. without inspection in December 2015 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
In 2013 gang members forced entry into his home in Huehuetenango and attempted to recruit him; his grandfather chased them off with a stick; Gregorio-Ordonez suffered no physical injury, did not report the incident, and remained in Guatemala until 2015 without further personal attacks.
He testified he feared future recruitment and violence and his counsel proposed the particular social group (PSG) "Mayan Chuj males between 15 and 25 who lack adequate governmental protection."
The Immigration Judge found the single 2013 incident did not rise to past persecution, the proposed PSG lacked social distinction, and there was no government acquiescence; denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ’s factual findings and legal conclusions; Gregorio-Ordonez petitioned the Sixth Circuit, which denied review and affirmed the BIA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether single 2013 gang break-in and threats constitute past persecution	Gregorio-Ordonez: the armed break-in and recruitment threat were persecution	BIA/IJ: isolated incident, no injury, no repeated attacks, did not rise to persecution	Denied — substantial evidence supports conclusion it was not persecution
Whether petitioner has a cognizable particular social group and nexus to persecution	Gregorio-Ordonez: "Mayan Chuj males 15–25 lacking government protection" explains targeting	BIA/IJ: proposed group lacks social distinction and nexus not shown	Denied — PSG not shown socially distinct; nexus not established
Whether petitioner is entitled to withholding of removal under the CAT	Gregorio-Ordonez: fears future torture by gangs or with government acquiescence	BIA/IJ: no evidence government would consent/acquiesce or that torture is more likely than not	Denied — substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief
Whether petitioner was denied due process via an unfair hearing	Gregorio-Ordonez: IJ failed to consider country-condition evidence	BIA/IJ: record shows IJ considered evidence; petitioner made no showing of prejudice	Denied — no showing that any alleged defect changed the outcome; claim forfeited

Mikhailevitch v. INS, 146 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 1998) (isolated harassment generally insufficient for persecution)
Mohammed v. Keisler, 507 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 2007) (single-incident persecution may suffice only if correspondingly severe)
Kukalo v. Holder, 744 F.3d 395 (6th Cir. 2014) (high deferential standard for finding persecution)
Umana-Ramos v. Holder, 724 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2013) (immutability and social-distinction requirements for particular social group)
Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980 (6th Cir. 2009) (particularity requirement for particular social group)
Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2009) (substantial-evidence standard and review of BIA adopting IJ's reasoning)
Yousif v. Lynch, 796 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2015) (asylum pathways: past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution)
Alhaj v. Holder, 576 F.3d 533 (6th Cir. 2009) (definition of torture and CAT standard)
Zheng v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 287 (6th Cir. 2016) (due process requires prejudice to prevail in immigration hearings)