Henry Miranda v. Jefferson Sessions, III
892 F.3d 940
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Miranda, a Salvadoran national, admitted removability and sought withholding of removal after fleeing El Salvador following his witnessing of an MS-13 gang murder in 2007 and receiving subsequent threats.
- He testified he was a well-known moto-taxi driver and union member in Quezaltepeque; he reported the murder to his employer but not to police.
- Evidence included Miranda’s testimony, country reports, and news articles about gang violence and risks to taxi drivers in El Salvador.
- The IJ found Miranda credible, concluded his proposed group (“former taxi drivers from Quezaltepeque who have witnessed a gang murder”) was a particular social group, and granted withholding of removal based on past and well‑founded fear of future persecution.
- The Board reversed, holding the proposed group was not socially distinct (hence not a cognizable particular social group) and concluded Miranda had not shown persecution on account of a protected ground; the Board ordered removal.
- Miranda petitioned for review; he also sought CAT relief which was denied but is not appealed here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miranda’s proposed group is a "particular social group" | Miranda: group (former taxi drivers from Quezaltepeque who witnessed a gang murder) is socially distinct and immutable | Government/Board: record lacks evidence that Salvadoran society perceives such a group as distinct | Held: Not a cognizable particular social group (affirmed) |
| Standard of review for Board’s treatment of IJ findings | Miranda: Board applied de novo review to IJ’s factual findings; should be clear-error | Government: Board reviewed IJ facts for clear error and law de novo | Held: Board properly reviewed underlying facts for clear error and legal question (particular social group) de novo |
| Whether Miranda suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground | Miranda: the shooting incident and subsequent threats constitute past persecution tied to group membership | Government/Board: even if facts accepted, persecution not shown to be on account of protected group because group not cognizable | Held: Court did not reach merits of persecution because lack of cognizable group forecloses claim |
| Whether remand required to consider alternative group definitions | Miranda: remand for IJ to assess other proposed groups (e.g., Salvadoran taxi drivers who witnessed a gang murder) | Government/Board: no remand because record lacks evidence those alternative groups are cognizable; remand would be futile | Held: No remand; record does not support alternative groups as particular social groups |
Key Cases Cited
- Ngugi v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2016) (defines three-prong test for "particular social group" and treats cognizability as legal question)
- Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (witnesses who testified in court against cartel members found socially distinct due to legal protections and societal recognition)
- INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (remand principles for administrative proceedings)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (agency remand and review principles)
- Cambara-Cambara v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2016) (burden on alien to show membership in particular social group is central reason for persecution)
- Garcia v. Holder, 746 F.3d 869 (8th Cir. 2014) (emphasizes inquiry whether status as group member is reason for persecution)
- Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153 (4th Cir. 2007) (rare-circumstances exception to remand when result is foregone conclusion)
- Gathangu v. Holder, 725 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2013) (analysis of nexus between protected ground and persecution)