Juan Munoz-Cano v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, 690 F. App'x 407

Munoz-Cano, a Guatemalan national, entered the U.S. without inspection and conceded removability after being served with a notice to appear.
He applied for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT, claiming past involvement with Mara-18 and fear of death from the gang for abandoning it years earlier.
At hearing, he testified about being recruited at 17, ordered to kill someone to earn a tattoo, hiding for ~15 days, then leaving for the U.S.; he asserted the gang would kill him if he returned.
The IJ found Munoz-Cano credible but denied withholding and CAT relief for failure to corroborate, for lack of a cognizable particular social group, and for failing to show likely torture or governmental acquiescence.
The BIA affirmed the IJ: it agreed the proposed group lacked social distinction, that corroboration was insufficient, and (after de novo review on acquiescence) that CAT relief was not established.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed the BIA decision for substantial evidence and denied the petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Corroboration requirement	Munoz-Cano argued his testimony was credible and family corroboration was unavailable due to fear	Agency argued objective corroboration was reasonably available (family letters, explanation for note) and he failed to provide it	Substantial evidence supports agency: corroboration was reasonably available and he failed burden
Particular social group (social distinction)	Proposed group: "men who were involved with a gang who left the gang without permission" is a particular social group	Agency argued the group lacks social distinction and precedent finds similar groups not socially distinct	Held: group lacks social distinction; not a cognizable particular social group
CAT: likelihood of torture	Munoz-Cano argued he would likely be tortured/killed by Mara-18 if returned	Agency found no clear likelihood of torture by gang and, on de novo review, no governmental acquiescence	Held: substantial evidence supports finding that torture is not more likely than not and agency correctly found no acquiescence
Standard of review	Munoz-Cano contended BIA misapplied standard for CAT determination	Agency applied clearly erroneous standard to IJ's factual predictive findings and reviewed acquiescence de novo	Held: BIA applied correct standards; argument fails

Harmon v. Holder, 758 F.3d 728 (6th Cir.) (BIA decision reviewed as final agency decision; IJ also reviewed when adopted)
Dieng v. Holder, 698 F.3d 866 (6th Cir.) (substantial-evidence review standard explained)
Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971 (6th Cir.) (absence of corroboration can defeat otherwise credible testimony)
Dorosh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 379 (6th Cir.) (corroboration requirement and burden)
Zaldana Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491 (6th Cir.) (agency determination that proposed groups of former gang members lack social distinction)
Zhitian Zhang v. Holder, [citation="542 F. App'x 458"] (6th Cir.) (family’s ability to send documents undercuts claim that corroboration was unavailable)