Linabel Mejia-Ramos v. William P. Barr
934 F.3d 789
| 8th Cir. | 2019Background
- Linabel Mejia-Ramos, a Honduran national, entered the U.S. in January 2014 and applied for asylum and withholding of removal after DHS initiated removal proceedings.
- In 2008 Linabel's father and brother were kidnapped by men wearing police-style vests; ransom calls were received but the two never returned. A family friend who assisted was later also kidnapped.
- Linabel experienced two threatening incidents: being cut off while driving shortly after the kidnappings, and an anonymous phone call in 2013 warning her the same thing would happen to her.
- Linabel testified credibly to fear of returning to Honduras, but her mother and remaining siblings continue to live in Honduras without similar mistreatment.
- The IJ found Linabel credible but concluded she did not prove past persecution, an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution, that the Honduran government was unwilling or unable to control the perpetrators, or that harm was on account of a protected ground (her claimed family-based social group). The BIA affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Linabel suffered past persecution | Kidnappings/related threats tied to family prominence and amounted to persecution | Incidents were criminal acts for profit, not persecution on protected ground | Denied — the record does not show past persecution |
| Whether Linabel has a well-founded fear of future persecution | Credible subjective fear based on threats and family history | Objective element lacking; family still in country unharmed; threats were criminal not targeted | Denied — subjective fear not objectively reasonable |
| Whether government is unwilling or unable to control perpetrators | Government ineffective; police involvement suspected | Evidence indicates criminal actors seeking ransom; no government condonation shown | Denied — insufficient proof government unwilling/unable to control |
| Eligibility for withholding of removal (clear probability standard) | Prior events and threats make future persecution more likely than not | Higher burden unmet because asylum standard failed | Denied — withholding requires greater showing and was not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for BIA decisions)
- Al Yatim v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 2008) (substantial-evidence review for asylum denials)
- Vonhm v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2006) (definition of refugee and protected grounds)
- Quomsieh v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 602 (8th Cir. 2007) (harassment and threats absent physical harm do not constitute persecution)
- Beck v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2008) (persecution by private actors requires government unable/unwilling to control them)
- Flores v. Holder, 699 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2012) (past persecution gives rebuttable presumption of future fear)
- Karim v. Holder, 596 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2010) (withholding of removal requires showing it is more likely than not the applicant would be persecuted)