Francisco Mendoza-Alvarez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9065
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Mendoza-Alvarez is a Mexican citizen born in 1975 who has insulin-dependent diabetes diagnosed in 1994 and significant health complications including a right-foot toe amputation, diabetes-related eye surgeries, and a diabetic coma in 2007, with ongoing risk of further amputation and concerns about access to life-sustaining medications.
- He has depression and PTSD, linked in part to childhood abuse, health fears, and his younger brother’s paralysis from a gunshot wound.
- He entered the United States in 1988 and later sought asylum and withholding of removal.
- The Immigration Judge denied asylum and CAT withholding but granted withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) due to fear of cumulative harms from poverty and disability-related limitations.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied withholding, concluding Mendoza-Alvarez’s proposed social group was not “particular” and that there was no clear probability of persecution based on membership in a social group.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mendoza-Alvarez’s proposed social group is “particular.” | Mendoza-Alvarez contends his group—insulin-dependent diabetics with mental illness—is particular and discrete. | Holder contends the group is not sufficiently particular and too broad. | Not particular; group too amorphous to be a discrete social class. |
| Whether Mendoza-Alvarez would be persecuted for membership in a particular social group if returned. | Membership in the proposed group would be a central reason for persecution. | Record shows no central reason for persecution tied to group membership. | Substantial evidence supports no clear probability of persecution due to group membership. |
| What standard governs the review of persecution and social-group determinations. | Standard should be de novo for legal questions and substantial evidence for factual findings. | Same standard; BIA findings reviewed for substantial evidence, legal questions reviewed de novo. | De novo review for law; substantial evidence for BIA factual findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (protective-ground persecution standard requires centrality to harm)
- Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2010) (‘clear probability’ standard for future persecution)
- Li v. INS, 92 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 1996) (economic disadvantage alone not a protected social group)
- Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc—particularity requirement for social groups)
- Matter of S–E–G–, 24 I. & N. Dec. 579 (BIA 2008) (framework for determining particularity of social groups)