Luis Amadeo Prieto-Pineda v. William P. Barr, 960 F.3d 516

Background:

Luis Amadeo Prieto‑Pineda, a Salvadoran national and former president of a local fishing cooperative, provided paid rides to Mara 18 gang members but refused recruitment and later refused reduced payments.
Mara 18 members threatened him and harassed his family (thefts, vandalism, late‑night threats); Prieto‑Pineda contacted police, who responded and at times scared off intruders.
Prieto‑Pineda entered the U.S. without inspection in 2013, was placed in removal proceedings, moved to Minnesota, missed an initial removal hearing, and later conceded removability while applying for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
The IJ found his asylum application untimely (no changed/extraordinary circumstances), denied withholding and CAT relief on the merits; the BIA affirmed, relying on findings that the government was not unwilling or unable to control gangs.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the denials were supported by substantial evidence and any BIA fact‑finding error as to CAT acquiescence was harmless.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Substantial evidence for denial of asylum/withholding	Prieto‑Pineda argued he faces persecution by Mara 18 because of cooperative membership, family membership, and anti‑gang (political) stance	Government argued threats were criminal coercion for economic access, not persecution on protected grounds, and Salvadoran police had protected him at times	Court held substantial evidence supports denial: harms were coercive/criminal, not on account of protected ground, and government not shown unwilling/unable to protect
2. Use of withholding findings to deny asylum	Prieto‑Pineda argued BIA improperly relied on the stricter "more likely than not" withholding factual findings to deny asylum (which uses "well‑founded fear")	Government relied on the same factual record to show no protected‑ground persecution for either relief	Court held no error: asylum denial stands because petitioner failed to show persecution on protected ground or inability/unwillingness of government
3. One‑year asylum bar and BIA review	Prieto‑Pineda argued BIA should have reviewed IJ’s untimeliness finding and exceptions (changed/extraordinary circumstances)	Government argued BIA need not reach timeliness once it resolved asylum on the merits	Court held BIA properly declined to decide timeliness because it resolved asylum on the merits
4. CAT relief and BIA fact‑finding	Prieto‑Pineda argued BIA erred by relying on IJ findings to deny CAT acquiescence (prohibited appellate fact‑finding)	Government argued petitioner offered no separate CAT evidence and any BIA fact‑finding error was harmless	Court held denial of CAT relief was proper: petitioner presented no separate CAT basis and any impermissible fact‑finding was harmless error

Key Cases Cited

Mejia‑Ramos v. Barr, 934 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2019) (substantial‑evidence review standard in immigration appeals)
Rivas v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 537 (8th Cir. 2018) (administrative fact findings conclusive absent compelling contrary evidence)
N’Diaye v. Barr, 931 F.3d 656 (8th Cir. 2019) (de novo review of legal questions)
Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2005) (persecution requires government infliction or inability/unwillingness to control non‑state actors)
Rendon v. Barr, 952 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2020) (withholding requires showing government unwilling/unable to protect)
INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984) (withholding standard: "more likely than not")
INS v. Cardoza‑Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (asylum standard: "well‑founded fear" distinct from withholding)
Marroquin‑Ochoma v. Holder, 574 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 2009) (refusal to join gang alone doesn't establish political‑opinion persecution)
Njong v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2018) (separate CAT analysis required only when grounds differ from asylum/withholding)
Puc‑Ruiz v. Holder, 629 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2010) (harmless‑error analysis for BIA procedural errors)
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976) (courts/agencies need not decide unnecessary issues)