Gretel Garcia-Gonzalez v. Jefferson Sessions
705 F. App'x 618
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioners Gretel Noemi Garcia-Gonzalez and her son Hugo Villatoro-Garcia, Guatemalan nationals, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on threats and violence after refusing to assist gang criminal activity.
- They asserted membership in a "particular social group" defined as persons who refuse to assist gang members.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied relief, finding the proposed group was not a cognizable particular social group and lacked evidence of social perception/distinction in Guatemala.
- Petitioners argued the BIA failed to conduct a fact-specific analysis and that precedent required recognition of their group; they cited Ninth Circuit decisions supporting fact-specific inquiries.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the record, agreed the record lacked evidence that Guatemalan society recognizes those who refuse gang cooperation as a distinct social group, and found the BIA applied the correct legal standard.
- Because Petitioners failed to establish membership in a cognizable particular social group, the court did not reach the BIA’s alternative nexus holding and denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether persons who refuse to assist gangs constitute a "particular social group" for asylum/withholding | Garcia-Gonzalez: group is cognizable; BIA should perform fact-specific analysis and recognize social group | Government/BIA: record lacks evidence Guatemalan society perceives such persons as a distinct group; analogous groups have been rejected | Court held group not cognizable; BIA applied correct standard and record lacks required societal perception evidence |
| Whether BIA failed to apply proper legal standard (fact-specific analysis) | Petitioners: BIA erred by not engaging in fact-specific inquiry required by Ninth Circuit precedents | BIA: applied governing authorities and sought evidence of social distinction; analogized to rejected groups | Court held BIA understood and applied the proper standard and petitioners’ evidentiary failure is dispositive |
| Whether nexus between alleged group membership and persecution was shown | Petitioners: threats/violence after refusal demonstrate nexus | BIA: alternatively found no nexus | Court did not reach nexus because group membership not established |
| Whether denial of withholding/CAT reviewable here | Petitioners: challenged denial of asylum and withholding; sought CAT too | Government: responds to merits as to asylum/withholding; CAT not pursued on review | Court denied petition as to asylum/withholding; CAT not challenged in petition for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014) (Ninth Circuit precedent on social-group analysis and fact-specific inquiry)
- Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (establishes framework for evaluating particular social groups)
- Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2016) (petitioner failed to provide evidence supporting narrow tailoring and societal perception of proposed group)
- Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) (discusses precedential effect of certain BIA decisions and vacatur on related issues)