Granada-Rubio v. Lynch
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3228
1st Cir.2016Background
- Elena Granada-Rubio and two sons (nationals of El Salvador) entered the U.S. unlawfully and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; sons were derivative beneficiaries of her asylum claim.
- Granada-Rubio testified she received MS-13 phone threats in Oct–Nov 2011 demanding $500/month, threatening to kill her or her children, and warning that police would make matters worse.
- She fled El Salvador on November 10, 2011, citing fear of harm if returned.
- The IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief, finding no past persecution on account of a protected ground, concluded the claimed group (targets of gang extortion) lacked legal social-group characteristics, and found insufficient evidence of government acquiescence for CAT.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ, and Granada-Rubio petitioned for review in the First Circuit, which denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner was persecuted on account of membership in a particular social group | Granada-Rubio: she is a member of "women with children whose husbands live/work in the U.S." targeted because husband can pay extortion | Government: petitioner targeted for economic reasons; group is not legally cognizable or socially distinct | Held: No; petitioner did not establish a particular social group or that persecution was on that account |
| Whether the proposed social group meets the M–E–V–G– requirements (immutable characteristic, particularity, social distinction) | Granada-Rubio: group is identifiable and recognized because husbands live in U.S. | Government: group lacks social distinction and is defined by perceived wealth/economic status, not immutable trait | Held: No; BIA reasonably found lack of social distinction/supporting evidence |
| Whether petitioner qualifies for withholding of removal given asylum denial | Granada-Rubio: withholding applies if fear of serious harm exists | Government: withholding requires higher burden and fails if asylum fails | Held: No; withholding fails because asylum eligibility not shown and higher standard unmet |
| Whether petitioner is eligible for CAT protection based on government acquiescence | Granada-Rubio: police often complicit or fail to help; country report shows official abuses | Government: record does not show more-likely-than-not torture with government acquiescence | Held: No; evidence does not compel finding of government acquiescence or likely torture |
Key Cases Cited
- Beltrand-Alas v. Holder, 689 F.3d 90 (1st Cir.) (rejecting social-group claims based on perceived wealth)
- Garcia–Callejas v. Holder, 666 F.3d 828 (1st Cir.) (rejecting groups defined solely by perceived wealth)
- Sicaju-Diaz v. Holder, 663 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (distinguishing class-based landowning group from mere perceived wealth)
- Mendez-Barrera v. Holder, 602 F.3d 21 (1st Cir.) (membership in a legally cognizable social group is a minimum requirement)
- Makhoul v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 75 (1st Cir.) (exhaustion requirement for theories not presented to the BIA)
- Aldana-Ramos v. Holder, 757 F.3d 9 (1st Cir.) (CAT requires showing torture more likely than not with government acquiescence)
- Makieh v. Holder, 572 F.3d 37 (1st Cir.) (administrative record must support government acquiescence finding for CAT)