Jose Abel Garcia-Carranza v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III
16-3553
| 8th Cir. | Jan 2, 2018Background
- Jose Garcia-Carranza, a native of El Salvador, entered the U.S. without valid documentation in 2012 and conceded removability.
- He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on past police detention, assault, threats to his life, and alleged membership in the social group “El Salvadorian youth who are being supported by family members in the United States.”
- The immigration judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals adopted much of the IJ’s decision and added reasoning.
- The BIA found Garcia-Carranza failed to identify a cognizable particular social group and that his mistreatment did not rise to past persecution.
- The BIA also found Garcia-Carranza lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution and that CAT relief was unwarranted because there was no evidence he would be tortured for reasons separate from his asylum claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garcia-Carranza qualifies for asylum via membership in a particular social group | He is targeted as “El Salvadorian youth supported by family in the U.S.” | That perceived wealth/group is not a cognizable protected social group | Denied — group not cognizable under asylum law |
| Whether petitioner suffered past persecution | Short detention, later assault, threats and emotional harm constitute persecution | Incidents were brief/minor and did not produce lasting injury; threats insufficient | Denied — facts do not compel finding of past persecution |
| Whether petitioner has a well-founded fear of future persecution | Police corruption/brutality creates objective and subjective fear of future harm | Risk is no greater than general population; family members remain safely in El Salvador | Denied — fear not particularized or objectively reasonable |
| Whether petitioner is entitled to withholding of removal or CAT protection | Same facts support higher burdens for withholding and CAT relief | No clear probability of persecution; no evidence of likelihood of torture for independent reasons | Denied — failed burden for withholding and no CAT showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Uli v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2008) (asylum statutory refugee definition)
- Tejado v. Holder, 776 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2015) (perceived wealth-based groups not cognizable)
- Matul-Hernandez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2012) (persecution requires more than low-level harassment; general risk in poorly policed countries)
- Setiadi v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2006) (minor beatings or limited detentions usually not past persecution)
- Phommasoukha v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2005) (longer imprisonment can constitute persecution)
- Lemus-Arita v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 476 (8th Cir. 2017) (threats alone suffice in limited, menacing circumstances)
- Bernal-Rendon v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2005) (family remaining unharmed reduces fear of persecution)
- Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2008) (CAT requires separate evidence of likelihood of torture)