Jhonny Garcia-Moctezuma v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III
879 F.3d 863
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Garcia-Moctezuma, a Mexican national, was ordered removed in 2010, reentered the U.S. unlawfully in 2014, and sought withholding of removal and CAT protection after claiming a reasonable fear of return.
- He testified he began worshipping Santa Muerte in Mexico and obtained two Santa Muerte tattoos; that faith is sometimes stereotyped as linked to drug cartels.
- In March and August 2014 he was beaten by Mexican security forces; the March incident involved soldiers who referenced his tattoos as cartel-related, and the August incident involved federal police who detained, beat, waterboarded, and threatened him after a fellow detainee identified him as a drug dealer.
- The IJ found his testimony credible, concluded the two beatings together amounted to past persecution, but held the nexus between the August 2014 mistreatment and his religious belief was insufficient under the "one central reason" standard and denied CAT protection as unlikely to recur.
- The BIA affirmed after remand; Garcia-Moctezuma appealed, arguing (among other things) the wrong nexus standard was applied and that he is likely to be tortured on return.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate nexus standard for withholding | "One central reason" is too strict; correct test is whether religion was "a reason" for persecution | IJ and BIA applied Matter of C-T-L- "one central reason" standard; petitioner waived challenge | Court held petitioner waived the argument and declined to reach merit of competing tests |
| Nexus between mistreatment and Santa Muerte faith | August 2014 abuse was motivated by anti-Santa Muerte stereotyping and tattoos | Police actions were based on suspected drug-dealing; tattoos were tangential and not shown to be religiously understood by perpetrators | Substantial evidence supports finding that Santa Muerte was not "one central reason" for the August abuse |
| Whether past harm rose to persecution | Past incidents together satisfy persecution threshold | Government argued March incident was minor; IJ found aggregate harm did constitute persecution | IJ (on remand) and court agreed the incidents, in aggregate, amounted to persecution, but nexus lacking for relief |
| CAT protection—likelihood of future torture | Past torture shows high risk of future torture due to stereotyping and government acquiescence | Single false accusation and country conditions show low likelihood of recurrence; government does not acquiesce | Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief; petitioner failed to show "more likely than not" future torture |
Key Cases Cited
- I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (statutory nexus requires persecution motivated by protected ground)
- Zine v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 535 (substantial-evidence review of BIA withholding determinations)
- Hartman v. Workman, 476 F.3d 633 (appellate courts generally will not consider issues raised first on appeal)
- Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (Ninth Circuit position challenging Matter of C-T-L- nexus construction)