Juliana Calmo Matias v. Merrick Garland, 20-72574

Background:

Petitioners Juliana Calmo Matias (mother), Sonia Matias Calmo, and Luis Matias Calmo (children) are Guatemalan nationals who applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT; the IJ denied relief and the BIA dismissed their appeals; petitioners sought review in the Ninth Circuit.
The underlying incidents included a break-in, destruction of property, and threats of kidnapping; petitioners allege the attackers targeted them in part because they are Mam (an indigenous group) and that attackers spoke Spanish and likely were ladinos.
Petitioners submitted country‑conditions evidence showing indigenous Guatemalans—especially women—face frequent discrimination and violence, and evidence of brutal mistreatment of indigenous people by government agents.
Petitioners argued the IJ and BIA failed to consider record evidence of future persecution/torture and failed to assess Sonia and Luis’s applications individually; they did not exhaust a separate argument about whether Sonia and Luis pleaded individually to removability.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision (and IJ parts the BIA relied upon), found agency error for failing to consider key evidence on nexus and country conditions, and remanded the asylum, withholding, and CAT claims for further consideration; the removability challenge was unexhausted and jurisdictionally barred.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of administrative issues (evidence of future persecution; individualized assessment)	Petitioners contend they exhausted these arguments before the BIA	Government contends petitioners failed to exhaust these claims	Court: exhausted for those arguments; but removability pleading issue was unexhausted and jurisdictionally barred
Nexus to a protected ground for asylum/withholding	Agency failed to consider evidence showing attacks were motivated at least in part by petitioners’ Mam ethnicity	Agency denied relief for lack of nexus	Court: BIA/IJ erred by not addressing this evidence; remand required because consideration could change outcome
Effect of past persecution on future fear findings	If past persecution is found, petitioner is entitled to presumptions of well‑founded fear/likelihood of persecution	Agency did not make or consider past‑persecution findings tied to protected ground	Court: on remand BIA must reassess asylum/withholding with applicable presumptions if past persecution is found
CAT protection and country‑conditions evidence	Petitioners argued record and country conditions show likelihood of torture by state actors against indigenous people	Agency denied CAT but failed to discuss or indicate it considered country conditions	Court: error for failing to consider country conditions; remand required
Individualized consideration for Sonia and Luis	Sonia and Luis filed individual applications and must be considered separately from mother	Government treated joint evidence and decisions as appropriate to the family	Court: joint presentation is permissible, but BIA must give individualized consideration to Sonia and Luis on remand

Key Cases Cited

Duran‑Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2019) (reviewing BIA and IJ parts relied upon by BIA)
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (exhaustion satisfied by mentioning relief sought before the BIA)
INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (circumstantial evidence may establish persecutory motive)
Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2007) (BIA must address all submitted evidence)
Singh v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2014) (persecution can have mixed motives including protected ground)
Hanna v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2007) (past persecution gives rise to presumptions for future fear findings)
Aguilar‑Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure to consider country conditions is reversible error)
Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2011) (BIA must either discuss evidence or include a catchall statement that it considered the record)