Jose Martinez v. Jefferson Sessions
14-72548
| 9th Cir. | Sep 18, 2017Background
- Petitioner Jose Alexander Martinez, a citizen of El Salvador, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after fleeing gang-related threats.
- Martinez filed an untimely asylum application and argued changed or worsened circumstances in El Salvador excused the lateness.
- He asserted membership in two proposed social groups (a loosely defined group of young men resisting gang violence and Salvadoran taxi drivers) and alternatively claimed an anti-gang political opinion.
- The immigration judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and denied Martinez’s petition for review, upholding the BIA/IJ findings on timeliness, social-group membership, political opinion, and CAT eligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether materially changed circumstances excuse Martinez’s untimely asylum filing | Martinez argued conditions in El Salvador changed/worsened to affect asylum eligibility | Government argued evidence did not show materially changed circumstances under asylum law | Court held substantial evidence supports denial; Martinez failed to show materially changed circumstances |
| Whether proposed social groups are cognizable (particularity/immutability) | Martinez argued he belonged to the proposed groups and was persecuted for membership | Government argued first group lacked particularity and second lacked an immutable/common characteristic | Court held both groups not legally cognizable (first: too loosely defined; second: lacked immutable characteristic) |
| Whether victimization reflects political opinion (actual or imputed anti-gang opinion) | Martinez contended persecution was based on anti-gang opinion | Government argued general aversion to gangs is not a political opinion supporting asylum | Court held claim abandoned in briefing and, on merits, general anti-gang aversion is not a political opinion supporting asylum |
| Whether Martinez is entitled to CAT protection due to government acquiescence | Martinez argued torture by gangs was likely with government consent/acquiescence | Government argued insufficient evidence of state involvement or acquiescence to torture | Court held substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief for lack of government involvement/acquiescence |
Key Cases Cited
- Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738 (9th Cir.) (proposed social group must meet particularity requirement)
- Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir.) (review standard for changed-circumstances asylum determinations)
- Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.) (addressing social-group analysis and related asylum standards)
- Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849 (9th Cir.) (gang victimization not necessarily political opinion)
- Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940 (9th Cir.) (CAT requires government instigation, consent, or acquiescence)
- Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir.) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived)