Gomez-Ramos v. Sessions
682 F. App'x 68
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Carlos Eustaquio Gomez-Ramos, a Guatemalan national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after threats and a kidnapping of his sister by gang members who perceived him as wealthy because he lives in the U.S. and built a house in Guatemala.
- The Immigration Judge denied all relief on September 13, 2013; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed on May 13, 2015. Gomez-Ramos petitioned for review in the Second Circuit.
- Gomez-Ramos proposed a particular social group: “young Guatemalan migrant workers that live in the United States and have family in Guatemala, who they regularly support financially.”
- He argued persecution was on account of membership in that group; the agency found no nexus to a protected ground and rejected his continuance requests for translations/evidence.
- Gomez-Ramos also raised due process and CAT issues, but the court declined to reach inadequately briefed or unexhausted challenges and focused on nexus and the continuance denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner’s proposed group is a cognizable particular social group | Gomez-Ramos: group defined by migrant status, age, U.S. residence and financial support of family in Guatemala is socially distinct and immutable | Gov’t/BIA: petitioner offered no evidence society views the group as a distinct class; wealth/residence is insufficiently discrete or immutable | Court: Affirmed BIA—no social distinction; wealth/residence alone inadequate to define a particular social group |
| Whether persecution was on account of a protected ground (nexus) | Gomez-Ramos: gang targeted him because he is perceived as a wealthy migrant who supports family, i.e., due to group membership | Gov’t: record shows persecutor’s perception but lacks evidence that society recognizes the group as distinct; nexus not shown | Court: Affirmed BIA—failed to establish nexus to protected ground |
| Whether IJ abused discretion in denying continuance to obtain translated documents | Gomez-Ramos: attempted to obtain translations; delays by translation companies show diligence and affected ability to present evidence | Gov’t: petitioner had multiple continuances and still failed to produce translations; untranslated docs were not probative of social group claim | Court: No abuse—petitioner not sufficiently diligent and denial caused no prejudice |
| Whether court should consider other claims (CAT, due process, asylum pretermission) | Gomez-Ramos: raised CAT and due process claims | Gov’t: some claims unexhausted or inadequately briefed | Court: Declined to reach inadequately challenged or unexhausted claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing BIA decision as supplemented by IJ)
- Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (standards of review for immigration decisions)
- Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 2006) (review of continuance denials: abuse of discretion standard)
- Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007) (wealth alone insufficient to define a particular social group)
- Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014) (social distinction requires society-wide recognition of group as distinct)
- Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (requirements for demonstrating persecution on account of protected ground)