Lydia Garcia-Milian v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2759
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Lydia Garcia-Milian, a Guatemalan national, entered the U.S. unlawfully in 2003 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; IJ found her testimony credible but denied relief, and the BIA affirmed.
- In 2003 two masked men repeatedly followed her; they later came to her home, demanded information about her ex‑husband Noe Garcia (allegedly a former guerrilla), beat and raped her, and threatened to kill her if they could not find him.
- Garcia‑Milian had not had contact with Noe for over a decade; the attackers told her they sought Noe because he had been in a guerrilla group.
- She reported the assault to local police, who declined to investigate for lack of identifying information; she then fled Guatemala and entered the U.S.
- Country reports submitted described weak Guatemalan police capacity to investigate sexual crimes and governmental difficulties addressing violence against women.
- The BIA concluded there was no evidence the attackers attributed a political opinion to Garcia‑Milian (no nexus to a protected ground) and that the government would not acquiesce in future torture; the Ninth Circuit majority upheld the BIA on both points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garcia‑Milian was persecuted on account of an imputed political opinion (asylum/withholding) | Attackers targeted her because they believed she was associated with her ex‑husband, a guerrilla; circumstantial evidence (statement, interrogation, home invasion, timing, violence) compels nexus | No direct evidence that attackers imputed a political opinion to her; the attackers’ statement could reflect an attempt to extract information rather than a politically motivated attack; circumstantial evidence does not compel a contrary finding | Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA that petitioner failed to show persecution on account of an imputed political opinion (no compelled conclusion to reverse) |
| Whether the Guatemalan government would acquiesce in future torture (CAT) | Police previously refused to investigate and country reports show systemic failures; therefore government likely to acquiesce in future torture | Police inability or failure to solve crimes does not establish acquiescence; government has taken steps (special units, prosecutions) and no evidence of systemic corruption or collusion compels a finding of acquiescence | Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA that petitioner failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured with government acquiescence |
| Whether withholding of removal claim requires different proof than asylum | (Related to asylum) If nexus established for asylum, withholding standard (more stringent) would follow | Failing asylum nexus means withholding also fails because withholding requires higher burden | Denied — because asylum nexus not met, withholding fails as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Elias‑Zacarias v. INS, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (persecutor motive is critical; applicant must present direct or circumstantial evidence of motive)
- Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2000) (imputed political opinion inquiry focuses on persecutors’ views; association evidence can support inference)
- Molina‑Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2002) (absence of direct or compelling circumstantial evidence may sustain BIA denial of imputed‑opinion claim)
- Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (family political associations can satisfy nexus where persecutors targeted petitioner for those associations)
- Ornelas‑Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2006) (defining government acquiescence: awareness plus breach of duty to oppose)
- Tamara‑Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 2006) (government resource limitations and failure to apprehend do not alone show CAT acquiescence)
- Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2013) (evidence of official corruption and police collusion may support CAT claim)