Heidy Menjivar v. Merrick B. Garland, 27 F.4th 638

Rivera Menjivar, a Salvadoran evangelical youth leader who helped people leave gangs, fled El Salvador at 17 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in the U.S.
Her pastor received a warning to protect the youth group; she claims fear of gang reprisals tied to her church activities.
She submitted affidavits from her sister and pastor and country reports; the IJ received the documents late and spent about 45 minutes reviewing them before denying relief.
The IJ found no well-founded fear of future persecution, summarily denied withholding of removal, and denied CAT protection for lack of evidence of personal harm or government acquiescence.
The BIA affirmed, rejecting her due process claim that the IJ failed to consider evidence and concluding the affidavits showed only general, not particularized, threats; Rivera Menjivar petitioned this court.

Issue	Rivera Menjivar's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Asylum / withholding of removal: whether she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on religion / particular social group	Her church leadership and anti-gang work expose her to particularized future harm	Evidence shows only general gang violence; family in El Salvador remains safe, undermining particularized fear	Denied; substantial evidence supports BIA that fear was not particularized; withholding (higher standard) also denied
CAT protection: whether she is more likely than not to be tortured with government acquiescence	Likely torture by gangs with government acquiescence or willful blindness	Failed to show probability of torture or government willful blindness; government struggles with gangs is insufficient	Denied; no showing of likely torture or acquiescence
Due process: whether IJ’s brief review of late evidence deprived her of a fair hearing	IJ’s ~45-minute review meant he failed to fully consider and corroborate evidence, prejudicing outcome	IJ reviewed and discussed the evidence; even if some error occurred, no prejudice because affidavits were general	Denied; no fundamental error or resulting prejudice

Etenyi v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2015) (generally review BIA decision; review IJ when BIA adopts IJ)
Degbe v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 2018) (substantial-evidence standard for asylum/CAT review)
Uzodinma v. Barr, 951 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard for compelling evidence that no reasonable factfinder could reject fear)
Galloso v. Barr, 954 F.3d 1189 (8th Cir. 2020) (subjective and objective components of well-founded fear)
Gomez-Garcia v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 730 (8th Cir. 2017) (family safety in home country relevant to objective reasonableness)
Osonowo v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (withholding of removal requires higher clear-probability standard)
Moallin v. Barr, 980 F.3d 1207 (8th Cir. 2020) (government acquiescence requires willful blindness beyond mere inability to prevent abuse)
Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2008) (likelihood of torture requires more than well-founded fear)
Cambara-Cambara v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2016) (government struggle to control gangs insufficient to show acquiescence)
Cardoza Salazar v. Barr, 932 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2019) (two-prong test for due-process claims in immigration proceedings)
Molina v. Whitaker, 910 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 2018) (due-process claims reviewed de novo)