Hugo Bautista-Bautista v. Merrick B. Garland
3 F.4th 1048
| 8th Cir. | 2021Background
- Hugo Bautista-Bautista, a Guatemalan national, entered the U.S. in 2010 and conceded removability for unlawful presence.
- He fled Guatemala after a vigilante group called “Seguridad” targeted him in 2010: members cut a tattoo from his back and threatened to cut a tattooed finger when he refused to remove it; he never reported the incident to authorities.
- On remand from the BIA, he sought withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) and CAT protection, asserting membership in two proposed particular social groups: “tattooed Guatemalan youths” and “people who promised to remove their tattoos years ago but did not.”
- The immigration judge found he was no longer a "youth," that the second proposed group lacked social distinction, and that relocation within Guatemala was reasonable; the BIA adopted and affirmed the decision.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence, and denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bautista-Bautista belongs to a "particular social group" for withholding of removal | He is a member of "tattooed Guatemalan youths" and of "people who promised to remove their tattoos but did not," and was targeted by Seguridad on that basis | Proposed groups fail the PSG test: he is not a youth; the tattoo-promise group lacks particularity and social distinction | Court upheld BIA: not a member of the youth group and the tattoo-promise group lacks social distinction |
| Whether internal relocation in Guatemala is reasonable | Relocation is infeasible because Seguridad may operate elsewhere and he has no family outside his town | Record does not show Seguridad’s nationwide reach; a healthy adult could reasonably relocate within Guatemala | Court upheld BIA: relocation within Guatemala is reasonable |
| Whether Bautista-Bautista is eligible for CAT relief (torture and state acquiescence) | More likely than not he would be tortured by Seguridad and the government acquiesces or is willfully blind | No evidence of government acquiescence; he did not report the incident; relocation defeats CAT eligibility | Court affirmed denial of CAT: no demonstrable state acquiescence and relocation undermines CAT claim |
| Standard of review and sufficiency of record evidence | Challenges BIA factual/legal conclusions | Agency decisions reviewed de novo for legal questions and under substantial evidence for facts | Court applied proper standards and found the BIA’s factual findings supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2018) (explaining withholding-of-removal standard)
- INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (U.S. 1984) (clear probability standard for withholding)
- Ngugi v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2016) (articulating PSG test quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-)
- Gonzalez Cano v. Lynch, 809 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 2016) (social-distinction requirement for PSGs)
- Constanza v. Holder, 647 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2011) (societal perception/cohesiveness element for PSGs)
- Saldana v. Lynch, 820 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2016) (reasonableness of internal relocation analysis)
- Juarez-Coronado v. Barr, 919 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2019) (CAT acquiescence and willful blindness standard)