975 F.3d 58
1st Cir.2020Background:
- José Francisco Loja-Tene, an Ecuadorian national, entered the U.S. undocumented in 2014 after fleeing threats from his adopted older brother, Angel, who allegedly pressured him and his father to traffic cocaine and later murdered the father.
- Angel reportedly threatened Loja-Tene at gunpoint and continued pressuring him; the petitioner’s wife and children relocated abroad and other family members remain in hiding in Ecuador.
- Loja-Tene applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, claiming persecution "on account of" membership in a particular social group (his family unit).
- At the immigration hearing the IJ found Loja-Tene credible but concluded the record did not establish that family membership was a central or motivating reason for the threats; the BIA affirmed.
- Loja-Tene’s CAT claim was waived as inadequately briefed on appeal; he sought judicial review of the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal.
- The First Circuit applied de novo review to legal issues and the substantial-evidence standard to factual findings, and denied the petition for review.
Issues:
| Issue | Loja-Tene's Argument | Barr's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency improperly foreclosed mixed-motive analysis for asylum | Agency wrongly refused to consider that family membership could be one of multiple central motives | Agency applied the correct legal standard and required family membership to be "at least one central reason" | Agency explicitly allowed mixed-motive theory and applied it; no legal error found |
| Whether Loja-Tene’s persecution was "on account of" membership in a particular social group (family unit) | Angel targeted immediate family members, so kinship motivated the threats | Evidence shows Angel’s motives were criminal (recruitment, greed, vindictiveness), not family membership | Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that family membership was not a motivating factor |
| Whether the IJ/BIA’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence | Record compels finding that kinship motivated persecution | Properly deferential review applies; record supports agency inferences | Substantial-evidence standard satisfied; court will not disturb agency factfindings |
| Whether withholding of removal should be granted (higher standard) | Withholding should follow asylum if persecution shown | Withholding requires clear probability of persecution and is not satisfied here | Withholding denied because asylum failed; higher standard unmet |
Key Cases Cited
- Pulisir v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2008) (standard for deference to agency factfindings in immigration cases)
- Aldana-Ramos v. Holder, 757 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2014) (statutorily protected ground need only be one central reason)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (substantial-evidence test for agency factfindings in asylum cases)
- Villalta-Martinez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2018) (agency may acknowledge mixed motives but find insufficient evidence of family-based motive)
- Lopez de Hincapie v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2007) (alien bears burden to give adjudicator basis for differentiation of motives)
- Marin-Portillo v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 99 (1st Cir. 2016) (targeting of family members does not automatically show family-based persecution)
- Aguilar-Solis v. INS, 168 F.3d 565 (1st Cir. 1999) (distinguishing asylum’s well-founded fear from withholding’s clear probability)
- Villa-Londono v. Holder, 600 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2010) (withholding of removal fails when asylum claim fails)