Luis Poroj-Lopez v. Jefferson Sessions
695 F. App'x 233
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Luis Fernando Poroj-Lopez, a Guatemalan national, appealed the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection by an IJ; BIA dismissed his appeal and he petitioned this court under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
- Poroj-Lopez claimed persecution based on membership in proposed social groups: "business and/or land owners" and "witnesses to corrupt government officials," and alleged government acquiescence to his mistreatment.
- He argued past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution; the IJ and BIA found either insufficient nexus to a protected ground or that violence was indiscriminate criminal violence.
- The BIA rejected his claims and found no evidence government officials would acquiesce in torture for CAT relief; the agency also made a relocation finding the court did not reach after remand.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence, dismissed one claim for failure to exhaust, affirmed some BIA conclusions, but found errors requiring remand on other claims and awarded costs to petitioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review ethnic-based harm claim | Poroj-Lopez argued he would be harmed due to ethnicity | Govt. argued issue was not exhausted before BIA | Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; claim unexhausted before BIA |
| Nexus for social group "business and/or land owners" | Poroj-Lopez asserted attacks were motivated by his membership in that group | Govt. argued petitioner failed to show persecutors targeted him because of that group membership | Substantial evidence upheld BIA: insufficient nexus to that protected ground |
| Past persecution as "witnesses to corrupt government officials" | Poroj-Lopez contended his mistreatment reflected targeted persecution for being a witness to corruption | Govt. argued violence was indiscriminate criminal activity, not on account of a protected ground | Substantial evidence did NOT support BIA’s conclusion; remanded to assess past persecution and social-group cognizability |
| CAT relief — government acquiescence | Poroj-Lopez argued a supervising police officer targeted him and officials would acquiesce to torture | Govt. argued no evidence of government acquiescence and IJ had correctly characterized motivations | Court found IJ mischaracterized evidence and BIA’s no-acquiescence finding unsupported; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing factual findings and CAT acquiescence principle)
- Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion required to preserve issues for judicial review)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (applicant must show evidence of persecutors' motive/nexus)
- Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing targeted persecution from general criminal violence)
- Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2004) (review limited to BIA’s stated grounds; remand when BIA reasoning insufficient)
- INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (U.S. 2002) (remand to agency when appropriate)