53 F.4th 752
2d Cir.2022Background:
- Petitioner Karla Iveth Garcia-Aranda is a Honduran national from San Juan (Tela, Atlántida); extended family (the Valerios) ran a drug operation and were targeted by the Mara 18 gang.
- Mara 18 killed several Valerio relatives, later extorted and kidnapped Garcia-Aranda, her husband, and children in 2014; during the kidnapping she heard a local police officer’s voice and believed an officer had been present.
- Garcia-Aranda entered the U.S. with her children in 2014, conceded removability, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; she testified credibly before the IJ.
- The IJ denied all relief, finding the proposed social group (Valerio family members) did not meet the required nexus for asylum/withholding and applying an "unable or unwilling to protect" standard to deny CAT relief.
- The BIA affirmed asylum/withholding denials and, after a remand on CAT, again denied CAT relief, reasoning the record did not show likely torture with government acquiescence.
- The Second Circuit denied review of asylum/withholding claims (substantial evidence supported the agency’s nexus finding) but vacated the BIA’s CAT determination and remanded for a correct color-of-law/acquiescence analysis.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether membership in the Valerio family was a "particular social group" nexus for asylum/withholding | Garcia-Aranda: gang targeted her as a Valerio family member due to family affiliation and past killings of relatives | Garland: evidence shows gang targeted her for perceived wealth/extortion, not family membership | Held: Denied — substantial evidence supports agency conclusion that perceived wealth/extortion, not family membership, was the central reason |
| Whether petitioner is eligible for CAT relief because future torture is likely and would involve state action (participation or acquiescence by officials acting under color of law) | Garcia-Aranda: a local police officer’s presence during past kidnapping and country-condition evidence of police–gang collusion make future torture by gang with police acquiescence likely | Garland: BIA argued record did not show likelihood that Honduran officials would acquiesce to or participate in torture | Held: Granted in part — court vacated BIA CAT denial and remanded because the BIA and IJ applied incorrect or incomplete standards; remand required to determine whether likely torture would be carried out by or with acquiescence/participation of persons acting under color of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) (defines acquiescence/willful blindness and analyzes routine torture’s link to state action)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (describes "color of law" standard for state-action analysis)
- Pan v. Holder, 777 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2015) (treats BIA opinions that track IJ reasoning and outlines standard of review)
- Acharya v. Holder, 761 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2014) (explains "at least one central reason" requirement in mixed-motive persecution cases)
- Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2021) (discusses CAT harm analysis and factors for torture determination)
- Rafiq v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2006) (remand precedent for CAT claims requiring proper application of state-action standards)