Jogelly Turcios-Flores v. Merrick B. Garland
67f4th347
6th Cir.2023Background
- Turcios‑Flores and her husband ran market stands in Tegucigalpa and paid MS‑13 a weekly "war tax."
- In 2012 the husband inherited a rural farm; the family kept ownership secret but occasionally brought a cousin who later joined MS‑13 and revealed the landownership.
- MS‑13 began extorting large sums (escalating from 20,000 to 100,000 lempiras) and threatened to kill family members; the husband fled to the U.S.; threats to Turcios‑Flores and her children continued, and local police offered ineffective assistance.
- Turcios‑Flores fled to the U.S. with her sons and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; an IJ denied relief and the BIA affirmed.
- The Sixth Circuit: affirmed the BIA’s denial of CAT relief and denial of asylum as to membership in the husband’s nuclear family; reversed/remanded as to whether two other proposed social groups (rural landowners/farmers; single mothers without male protection) were properly rejected as cognizable; remanded withholding claim for correct nexus analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognizability of "rural landowners or farmers" as a particular social group | Landownership is a fundamental/immutable characteristic (inherited, identity‑forming) and members should not be required to abandon it | BIA/IJ: record did not show an immutable characteristic identifiable to persecutors; landownership can be abandoned and lacks particularity/social distinction | Court: BIA’s immutability finding not supported by substantial evidence; remanded for BIA to address particularity and social distinction and remaining asylum elements |
| Cognizability of "single mothers living without male protection" | Group is socially distinct and identifiable (police acknowledged gangs target women with husbands in the U.S.); group defined by marital/maternal status, not circularly by persecution | BIA/IJ: group lacks social distinction; government also argued claim was inadequately developed/exhausted | Court: record compels a different conclusion on social distinction; remand for further proceedings |
| Nexus for asylum re: membership in husband’s nuclear family | Membership in husband’s family caused gang targeting | BIA/IJ: targeting was pecuniary (gang sought money after learning of farm income), no evidence of animus toward family membership | Court: substantial evidence supports BIA’s nexus finding; petition denied as to this ground |
| Withholding of removal nexus standard | Withholding requires only that group membership be "a reason" for harm (a weaker standard than asylum) | BIA applied asylum‑level analysis and found no nexus | Court: asylum and withholding standards differ; remanded for the agency to apply the proper withholding standard and make factual findings |
| CAT claim (government acquiescence) | Likely torture by gangs and government acquiesced/willfully blind | BIA/IJ: Honduran government took efforts to combat gangs; record does not show acquiescence | Court: BIA’s denial was reasonable given evidence of government efforts; CAT claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bi Xia Qu v. Holder, 618 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2010) (landownership or shared past experience can satisfy immutability/fundamental‑characteristic inquiry)
- Guzman‑Vazquez v. Barr, 959 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2020) (distinguishes asylum nexus—"one central reason"—from withholding nexus—"a reason")
- Zaldana Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2015) (applies substantial‑evidence review to social‑distinction findings)
- Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2009) (when the BIA issues a separate opinion it is reviewed as the final agency determination)
- Umaña‑Ramos v. Holder, 724 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2013) (rejection of groups defined solely by prior interaction with persecutors; circularity concern)
- Garcia v. Barr, 960 F.3d 893 (6th Cir. 2020) (CAT requires torture by or with acquiescence of government officials)