Israel Felipe Lira Saldana v. Loretta E. Lynch
820 F.3d 970
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mexico natives Israel Lira Saldana, Elizabeth Pino Peralta, and three children sought asylum, withholding, and CAT protection after violent targeting by the Matazetas gang in Veracruz tied to perceived/actual romantic relationships between family members and Los Zetas.
- Karla testified masked, armed men invaded a home, asked about Angelica and “Chula” (Elizabeth), threatened rape and torture, abducted relatives, and forced a child to identify Elizabeth as linked to Zetas; some relatives remain missing.
- Petitioners fled to the U.S.; police in Veracruz received a delayed report and investigated; petitioners say Puebla police referred them back to Veracruz; petitioners’ expert opined that Mexican authorities are broadly unable/unwilling to control gangs and that Matazetas activity is concentrated in Veracruz.
- The IJ credited petitioners’ testimony and the expert but denied relief; the BIA affirmed, holding the claimed social group insufficiently distinct and alternatively ruling the government was not shown unable/unwilling to control the gang and internal relocation in Mexico was reasonable; CAT relief was denied for lack of government acquiescence.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence, concluded the Board may not have addressed the petitioners’ precise family-based social group but upheld the denial on alternative grounds (government control and reasonableness of internal relocation) and denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petitioners’ asserted family (the Lira-Pino family) qualifies as a "particular social group" | The Lira-Pino family is a cognizable particular social group entitled to asylum protection | The Board characterized the proffered group as "family members of someone who dated gang members," a group too diffuse/not sufficiently distinct to be a PSG | Court: BIA did not clearly decide the precise family question, but denial is upheld on alternative grounds; court declined to resolve PSG issue on the merits and affirmed BIA’s denial overall |
| Whether Mexican government is unwilling or unable to control Matazetas (private persecutors) | Petitioners and expert contend Mexico is unable/unwilling to protect them from Matazetas | Government showed investigatory action, deployment of federal forces to Veracruz, and anti-corruption efforts; argued petitioners failed to prove complete helplessness | Held: Substantial evidence supports BIA that petitioners did not prove government inability/unwillingness to control gang activity |
| Whether internal relocation in Mexico is a reasonable alternative to asylum | Petitioners argue relocation is not viable (evidence a government official advised they must leave country; relatives must "hide") | Government and BIA argue Matazetas’ activity is concentrated in Veracruz and expert conceded other states and Mexico City have more control, so relocation is reasonable | Held: BIA reasonably found internal relocation within Mexico could avoid persecution; denial affirmed |
| Whether petitioners established entitlement to CAT relief (torture with government acquiescence) | Petitioners contend torture by Matazetas likely and government would acquiesce | Government points to countervailing evidence of Mexican efforts to combat gangs and lack of evidence showing official acquiescence | Held: Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief for failure to show government acquiescence |
Key Cases Cited
- Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2004) (substantial-evidence review of BIA factual findings)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (standards for asylum burden and review)
- Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2005) (private persecution requires government unwillingness or inability to control perpetrators)
- De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375 (8th Cir. 2013) (requirement that failure to control private actors be more than ordinary law-enforcement shortcomings)
- Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (2006) (Board should address whether a family is a particular social group in the first instance)