Felix Somoza-Garcia v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
746 F.3d 869
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Somoza Garcia, a Guatemalan national, entered the U.S. illegally in 2002 and faced removal charging under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(I).
- He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief rather than removal.
- He alleged MS-13 violence—including extortion and multiple attacks—as basis for relief.
- He claimed membership in a particular social group (opposing MS-13) and a political opinion (upholding laws by reporting gang violence).
- The IJ denied withholding and CAT relief, the BIA dismissed, and Somoza petitioned for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Somoza’s social group is cognizable | Somoza claims a group of young Guatemalan anti-MS-13 resisters. | Group lacks particularity and societal visibility. | No; group is not sufficiently particular or visible. |
| Whether Somoza’s political opinion qualifies | Opposition to MS-13 constitutes a political opinion. | Opposition to a gang does not imply a cognizable political opinion. | No; opposition to a gang is not a cognizable political opinion. |
| CAT relief standard and government acquiescence | Guatemala would acquiesce in torture of Somoza by MS-13. | Record does not show willful government acquiescence. | Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief. |
| Deference and standard of review | N/A | N/A | Court reviews IJ factual findings for substantial evidence; legal questions de novo. |
| BIA adoption of IJ reasoning | N/A | BIA adopted IJ reasoning and added its own. | Court reviews both decisions; substantial-evidence standard applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Constanza v. Holder, 647 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2011) (social group must be sufficiently particular and visible)
- Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2008) (rejection of broad, diffuse groups as social groups)
- Gathungu v. Holder, 725 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2013) (central question is reason for persecution; need for particularity/visibility)
- Gaitan v. Holder, 671 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 2012) (efforts to resist gang violence do not establish cognizable social group)
- Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405 (8th Cir. 2007) (acquiescence requires willful blindness, not mere awareness)
- Marroquin-Ochoma v. Holder, 574 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 2009) (opposition to gangs not imputed political opinion for asylum)
- Gutierrez-Vidal v. Holder, 709 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2013) (local authorities not unwilling to control gang violence; arrest demonstrated control)
- Turay v. Ashcroft, 405 F.3d 663 (8th Cir. 2005) (substantial-evidence standard for factual determinations)
- Supangat v. Holder, 735 F.3d 792 (8th Cir. 2013) (reaffirmed standards for withholding and CAT analyses)
- Osonowo v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (related to agency review of BIA decisions)
- Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2005) (reaffirmed de novo review of legal questions)