Felix Flores Rios v. Loretta E. Lynch
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20803
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Flores-Rios, a native of Guatemala, entered the U.S. in 2007 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after gang violence in Guatemala killed his father and cousin and threatened other family members.
- His cousin agreed to testify against the killers and was murdered the day before the hearing; his sister later received threats and fled.
- IJ concluded Flores-Rios’s asylum claim was time-barred and found the family killings and threats were motivated by gang violence/witness intimidation, not religion; IJ also thought Flores-Rios did not claim membership in a witness-based social group because he was not a witness.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ on religious-persecution grounds but did not address Flores-Rios’s claim that he faced persecution based on membership in his family (a particular social group).
- Flores-Rios abandoned asylum and CAT claims on appeal to the Ninth Circuit and pursued withholding-of-removal relief based on religion and family membership as a particular social group.
- The Ninth Circuit held the BIA erred by failing to consider the family-based social-group claim and remanded for further proceedings; it upheld the BIA’s factual findings rejecting the religious-persecution claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Flores-Rios was persecuted or threatened on account of his religion | Flores-Rios: family targeted due to Evangelical faith and refusal to shield perpetrators | Government: murders/threats were gang violence/witness intimidation, not religious persecution | Court: BIA’s factual finding that religion nexus was insufficient is supported by substantial evidence; religious claim denied |
| Whether family membership qualifies as a "particular social group" for withholding | Flores-Rios: his family is a cognizable social group and he faces persecution because of a gang vendetta against the family | Government: argued otherwise and contended claim wasn't properly raised/exhausted | Court: Flores-Rios properly raised the family-based social-group claim; BIA erred by failing to address it and remand is required |
| Whether Flores-Rios exhausted administrative remedies for the social-group claim | Flores-Rios: raised the group in his BIA brief | Government: argued claim not properly before BIA | Court: Exhaustion satisfied; BIA had notice and should have addressed the argument |
| Standard for "particular social group" analysis going forward | Flores-Rios: family falls within established social-group framework | Government: urged narrower reading emphasizing perpetrator perception | Court: Clarified applicable framework (immutable characteristic, particularity, social distinction as perceived by society) and noted family is typically cognizable; remand to apply this test to Flores-Rios’s family claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (discussing social visibility and persecutor perception in social-group analysis)
- Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) (substantial-evidence review of BIA factfinding)
- Thomas v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (family membership can constitute a particular social group)
- Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (family of witnesses against gangs recognized as cognizable social group)
- Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2005) (BIA must address arguments raised by petitioner)
- Donchev v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting difficulty of defining "particular social group")