Guzman-Alvarez v. Sessions
701 F. App'x 54
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Jacqueline Lissette Guzman‑Alvarez, a citizen of El Salvador, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on domestic violence by a long‑term partner (they lived together ~14 years and had three children) whom she never married.
- IJ denied relief; BIA affirmed the denial without reaching some alternative grounds; petitioner appealed to the Second Circuit.
- Petitioner argued she was a member of a cognizable particular social group (women in domestic relationships unable to leave) per Matter of A‑R‑C‑G‑.
- The agency relied on record facts showing Guzman‑Alvarez never reported abuse to police, had lost contact with the partner by April 2014, and gave vague, undetailed testimony about inability to leave.
- The court reviewed legal questions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence and limited review to the BIA’s disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Guzman‑Alvarez belongs to a cognizable particular social group (membership in "women in domestic relationships unable to leave") | Guzman‑Alvarez claimed gender/marital‑status‑based group analogous to Matter of A‑R‑C‑G‑; she could not safely leave the relationship | Government: record lacks evidence of inability to leave; she was not married, never sought police protection, and offered vague testimony | Denied — petitioner failed to meet the immutable‑characteristic and particularity requirements for a particular social group |
| Standard of review for agency findings | N/A (petitioner implicitly urged reversal of agency factual findings) | Agency factual findings reviewed under substantial evidence; legal questions reviewed de novo | Court applied de novo review to legal questions and substantial evidence to factual findings; substantial evidence supports BIA/IJ conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir.) (describing scope of review of IJ decision as modified by BIA)
- Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir.) (articulating three‑part test for particular social group: immutability, particularity, social distinction)