Juan Carlos Guillen Zerpa v. U.S. Attorney General, 16-17407

Guillén Zerpa, a Venezuelan accountant, prepared a false asset-verification letter for Michael Kenwood Group (MKG) tied to a large PDVSA pension-fund fraud; he admitted the falsity and received $1 million.
The SEC investigated MKG/Illarramendi; Guillén Zerpa traveled to Miami in 2011, was arrested, pled guilty to conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1512), and served 14 months in U.S. federal prison.
While incarcerated, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief claiming fear of persecution/torture if returned to Venezuela based on (1) membership in the “Bolivarian bourgeoisie,” (2) political opposition to Chávez, and (3) his involvement in the PDVSA fraud.
At the merits hearing he offered expert testimony from Dr. Freddy Aray Lárez about Venezuela’s criminal justice system; the IJ excluded most of the expert’s testimony as speculative because Guillén Zerpa had not shown a likelihood he would be prosecuted if returned.
The IJ found asylum time-barred and denied withholding and CAT relief for lack of nexus to a protected ground and insufficient evidence that torture was more likely than not; the BIA affirmed on similar grounds and rejected a due-process claim about excluding the expert.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of expert witness violated due process	Exclusion deprived Guillén Zerpa of ability to present relevant evidence on risk of prosecution/torture	Exclusion proper because testimony was speculative and irrelevant absent showing of likely prosecution	No due process violation; exclusion was not prejudicial because expert testimony would be cumulative/irrelevant
Whether Guillén Zerpa qualifies for asylum (well‑founded fear)	He fears persecution as member of “Bolivarian bourgeoisie” and for political opposition	No particularity for social group; affluence not an immutable characteristic; no showing he would be singled out	Denied: failed to show nexus to a protected ground or particularity for proposed group
Whether withholding of removal applies (more likely than not)	Same factual fears support higher withholding standard	No likelihood of prosecution; fear of criminal prosecution under law not a protected ground	Denied: failed to meet the higher "more likely than not" standard
Whether CAT relief is warranted	Risk of torture by state or with state acquiescence if returned	No showing of likely prosecution or that torture is more likely than not; imprisonment for criminal acts not ordinarily "torture" under CAT	Denied: substantial evidence supports that torture is not more likely than not

Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (review of BIA decisions) (standard for reviewing BIA decisions)
Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941 (review when BIA adopts IJ findings)
Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 (substantial-evidence standard on administrative findings)
Alhuay v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 661 F.3d 534 (due process entitlement to full and fair hearing in removal proceedings)
Frech v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 491 F.3d 1277 (exclusion of evidence can constitute due process violation in some circumstances)
United States v. Wuagneux, 683 F.2d 1343 (tribunal may limit testimony that is cumulative or irrelevant)
Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (asylum: past persecution or well‑founded fear standard)
Mohammed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 547 F.3d 1340 (requirement for specific, detailed facts to show individualized risk)
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (withholding: "more likely than not" standard)
Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 445 F.3d 1311 (fear of prosecution under fairly administered laws not asylum basis)
Reyes‑Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239 (CAT: "more likely than not" and government acquiescence requirement)
Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173 (lawful imprisonment for criminal behavior generally does not constitute torture)