Ismael Lozano-Zuniga v. Loretta Lynch
832 F.3d 822
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Ismael Lozano‑Zuniga, a Mexican national who entered the U.S. as a minor without admission/parole, was charged with removability after a DUI conviction and conceded removability.
- He applied for withholding of removal under the INA and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- Lozano‑Zuniga testified he feared return because (1) as a young man returning from the U.S. he might be targeted or forcibly recruited by the Zetas, and (2) he is a practicing Seventh‑Day Adventist who experienced religious harassment in Mexico.
- Evidence offered: his testimony, a decades‑old extortion phone call to his mother, a church letter asserting verbal/physical abuse to members, and news articles on Zetas’ violence and police corruption; no evidence of personal threats or past persecution.
- The Immigration Judge found him credible but denied withholding and CAT relief for failure to show a clear probability of persecution or of torture with government acquiescence; the BIA affirmed; petitioner sought review.
Issues
| Issue | Lozano‑Zuniga's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner belongs to a cognizable "particular social group" (young men returning from U.S.) | Group is identifiable and members are targeted by gangs as perceived sources of money | BIA: group not established as a particular social group; even if cognizable, petitioner failed to show individualized risk | Court assumed arguendo but affirmed denial — petitioner failed to show he would likely be singled out |
| Whether petitioner established entitlement to withholding of removal (clear probability of persecution on protected ground) | He would likely be persecuted for membership in the alleged social group and/or for his religion | Government: evidence shows generalized countrywide violence, not individualized, nexus‑based persecution | Denied — petitioner did not present specific, detailed facts showing it is more likely than not he would be targeted |
| Whether petitioner is eligible for CAT protection (more likely than not of torture by/with government acquiescence) | Zetas’ violence and police corruption make government acquiescence likely; religious targeting increases risk | Government: country‑wide reports insufficient without evidence petitioner himself would be tortured or that officials would acquiesce | Denied — record lacks proof petitioner would be tortured or that officials would acquiesce or willfully ignore torture against him |
| Standard of review and sufficiency of record to overturn agency | N/A — petitioner contends agency erred in weighing evidence | Government relies on highly deferential substantial‑evidence review of BIA/IJ findings | Court applied Chevron and substantial‑evidence standards and concluded record does not compel reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Cece v. Holder, 733 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2013) (defines review framework and particular social group analysis)
- Duarte‑Salagosa v. Holder, 775 F.3d 841 (7th Cir. 2014) (burden for withholding of removal: clear probability standard)
- Musa v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 1019 (7th Cir. 2016) (clear probability = more likely than not)
- Tawuo v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2015) (deference to agency factual findings)
- Zeqiri v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 364 (7th Cir. 2008) (generalized unrest insufficient; need individualized risk)
- Salim v. Holder, 728 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2013) (requirement for specific, detailed facts showing likelihood of being singled out)
- Munoz‑Avila v. Holder, 716 F.3d 976 (7th Cir. 2013) (overall country danger is insufficient for persecution finding)
- Sayaxing v. I.N.S., 179 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 1999) (must show fear pertains to individual, not general population)
- Sarhan v. Holder, 658 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2011) (CAT requires showing more likely than not of torture)
- Borovsky v. Holder, 612 F.3d 917 (7th Cir. 2010) (definition of torture under CAT and regulatory guidance)
- Toure v. Holder, 624 F.3d 422 (7th Cir. 2010) (CAT nexus and evidentiary considerations)
- Lenjinac v. Holder, 780 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2015) (country reports alone insufficient for CAT without individualized risk)
- Rashiah v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 1126 (7th Cir. 2004) (denial of CAT where torture reports lacked evidence petitioner would be targeted)
- Jan v. Holder, 576 F.3d 455 (7th Cir. 2009) (general corruption reports too vague to show petitioner‑specific risk)
- Lopez v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 484 (7th Cir. 2016) (acquiescence requires official awareness and breach of duty to intervene)
Decision: petition for review DENIED.