Ismael Gonzalez-Soto v. Loretta Lynch
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20439
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Ismael Gonzalez-Soto, a Mexican national, conceded removability for unlawful entry and sought withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3) or voluntary departure.
- The immigration judge denied withholding; the BIA dismissed Gonzalez-Soto’s appeal but granted voluntary departure with conditions.
- Withholding requires showing a "clear probability" of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
- Gonzalez-Soto asserted two proposed social groups: (1) persons targeted by a victim’s family seeking revenge for a murder allegedly committed by the petitioner’s father decades earlier; and (2) persons perceived as wealthy because they lived in the United States.
- The BIA found the revenge claim speculative given long-term continued residence in Mexico by petitioner’s close relatives and no evidence of harm, and found the perceived-wealth group insufficiently particular and socially visible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner faces a clear probability of persecution from a victim’s family seeking revenge | Gonzalez: victim’s family targets him for his father’s alleged murder, creating risk on return | Govt/BIA: evidence is speculative; petitioner’s family still lives in Mexico unharmed, undermining reasonableness of fear | Denied — fear found speculative; record does not compel finding of persecution risk |
| Whether persons perceived as wealthy due to U.S. residence form a cognizable particular social group | Gonzalez: returning migrants perceived as wealthy will be targeted for extortion/violence | Govt/BIA: perceived-wealth group is not sufficiently particular or socially visible; economic extortion not a protected ground | Denied — group not cognizable; economic extortion/wealth perception not recognized as persecution ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Sealed Petitioner v. Sealed Respondent, 829 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for BIA decisions)
- Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132 (5th Cir. 2004) ("clear probability" standard for withholding)
- Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2004) (family remaining unharmed in home country undermines fear of persecution)
- Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2005) (substantial-evidence review; evidence must compel contrary conclusion to overturn BIA)
- Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784 (5th Cir. 2016) (particularity and social visibility requirements for proposed social groups)
- Castillo-Enriquez v. Holder, 690 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2012) (economic extortion and wealth perception do not create protected group)
- Diaz v. Holder, [citation="537 F. App'x 357"] (5th Cir. 2013) (persons perceived as wealthy from U.S. residence not a cognizable social group)
- Segovia v. Holder, [citation="406 F. App'x 930"] (5th Cir. 2011) (similar rejection of perceived-wealth social group)