Inoel Gonzalez Cano v. Loretta E. Lynch
809 F.3d 1056
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Gonzalez Cano, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. in 2000 and conceded removability in 2009; he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- As a child (age 12), he was kidnapped by a drug cartel, held in a labor camp, and forced to cultivate drugs for about five years until rescued by the military in 2000. He later fled to the U.S.
- He sought withholding of removal based on membership in a proposed particular social group defined on appeal as “escapee Mexican child laborers.”
- The BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s denial, finding the proposed group not socially distinct and that Gonzalez Cano failed to show persecution on account of group membership.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed legal issues de novo and factual findings under substantial evidence and denied the petition for review as to withholding of removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "escapee Mexican child laborers" is a cognizable particular social group (PSG) | Gonzalez Cano: group is defined by immutable characteristic (victim of child forced labor) and is socially distinct | Government: record lacks evidence Mexican society perceives this as a cohesive, identifiable group | Court: Affirmed BIA—record insufficient to show social distinctness | |
| Whether persecution was on account of PSG membership (causal nexus) | Gonzalez Cano: cartel harmed him because he was an escapee/child laborer | Government: harm (abduction/forced labor) are the defining characteristics, so membership did not motivate persecution | Court: Affirmed BIA—failed to establish nexus; initial harms were the defining characteristics | |
| Whether applicant met withholding of removal standard (clear probability of persecution) | Gonzalez Cano: past severe harm and risk on return show more-likely-than-not persecution | Government: no nexus and no cognizable PSG, so withholding not met | Court: Denied—no showing of persecution on account of PSG, so withholding not established | |
| Need to address government inability/unwillingness, internal relocation, or changed circumstances | Gonzalez Cano: argued risk persists and government protection insufficient | Government: argued other factual/legal defenses | Court: Did not reach these questions because PSG and nexus findings dispositive | Court: These issues were unnecessary to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2004) (withholding of removal requires showing a clear probability of persecution)
- Osonowo v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review: factual findings substantial-evidence; legal questions de novo with deference to reasonable BIA interpretations)
- Gathungu v. Holder, 725 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2013) (social distinction requires evidence society makes meaningful distinctions based on the group's defining characteristics)
- Gaitan v. Holder, 671 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 2012) (evidence of similar harms alone insufficient to establish social distinctness)
- Garcia v. Holder, 746 F.3d 869 (8th Cir. 2014) (requirements for cognizable particular social group: immutable characteristic, particularity, social distinction)