Ixcuna Sam v. Holder, Jr., 752 F.3d 97

Sam, Guatemalan by birth, entered the U.S. without inspection around 1999–2000 to escape economic hardship.
Removal proceedings were commenced in 2006 under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
In 2011, Sam conceded removability and filed for withholding of removal, claiming he would face extortion if returned.
He argued he belonged to a particular social group as a wealth-associated returnee from the United States.
An IJ denied withholding in 2011, finding no cognizable particular social group and no clear probability of persecution.
The BIA affirmed in 2013, largely adopting the IJ’s reasoning and held that wealthy returnees are not a particular social group.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether wealthy returnees constitute a particular social group	Sam is perceived as wealthy upon return, creating a discrete, socially visible group.	Sicaju-Diaz controls; wealth alone, or return from the U.S., did not establish a PSG.	Not a particular social group; Sicaju-Diaz controls.
Whether the BIA’s and IJ’s factual determinations are supported by substantial evidence	There is a legitimate fear and specific social context supporting withholding.	Record evidence does not show a protected ground-driven persecution; decisions are supported by substantial evidence.	Yes; findings sustained; petition denied.

Sicaju-Diaz v. Holder, 663 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (wealth-based groups and returnees not necessarily a PSG)
Palma-Mazariegos v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2005) (persecutory risk not shown for general Guatemalan threat to all)
In re A-M-E & J-G-U-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 69 (BIA 2007) (agency precedent cited regarding PSG analysis)
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1987) (clear probability standard for persecution)
Romilus v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (standard for reviewing BIA findings)
Elias-Zacarias v. INS, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (framework for reviewing asylum withholding decisions)