979 F.3d 210
4th Cir.2020Background
- Maria Del Carmen Amaya‑De Sicaran, a Salvadoran national, entered the U.S. unlawfully in 2013 and was placed in removal proceedings; she applied for asylum, statutory withholding, and CAT protection.
- She claimed persecution as a member of the particular social group she defined as “married El Salvadoran women in a controlling and abusive domestic relationship,” fearing harm from her husband (a Salvadoran soldier) who allegedly beat, raped, threatened, and attempted to seize their children.
- The Immigration Judge found Sicaran credible and adequately corroborated but denied asylum (concluding she had left the claimed group in 2009) and denied CAT relief for failure to show governmental acquiescence to torture.
- The BIA reviewed de novo, relied on Matter of A‑B‑ (Attorney General decision), and held the proffered group non‑cognizable as impermissibly circular and not immutable; it affirmed the CAT denial.
- On review, the Fourth Circuit dismissed claims based on social groups not raised before the agency for lack of jurisdiction, upheld the BIA’s application of the anti‑circularity principle under Matter of A‑B‑, and denied the petition in part and dismissed it in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / Exhaustion of newly asserted social groups | Sicaran sought to present several alternative social‑group definitions on appeal. | Government: petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not raising those groups before the IJ/BIA. | Court: lacked jurisdiction to consider any social groups not presented to the agency; those claims dismissed. |
| Cognizability — anti‑circularity of proposed group | Sicaran: “married El Salvadoran women in a controlling and abusive domestic relationship” is a valid particular social group. | Government/BIA: group is defined by the persecution (abuse) and is therefore circular and non‑cognizable under Matter of A‑B‑. | Court: upheld BIA; group is impermissibly circular and non‑cognizable; asylum denied. |
| Statutory withholding of removal (§ 1231(b)(3)) | Sicaran: same grounds as asylum warrant withholding. | Government: withholding requires a higher “more likely than not” showing and fails because asylum failed. | Court: because asylum failed on cognizability, withholding (a higher standard) also fails. |
| CAT relief — torture and governmental acquiescence | Sicaran: abuse (and husband’s soldier status) shows likelihood of torture and government acquiescence. | Government: record shows domestic violence by a private actor; police/courts were involved at times and do not show government consent/acquiescence. | Court: affirmed BIA/IJ; petitioner failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured with government acquiescence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Temu v. Holder, 740 F.3d 887 (4th Cir. 2014) (de novo review for particular‑social‑group cognizability; deferential review of agency facts)
- Alvarez Lagos v. Barr, 927 F.3d 236 (4th Cir. 2019) (sets out the three‑part particular social group test)
- Rreshpja v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 551 (6th Cir. 2005) (anti‑circularity: group must share a characteristic other than the risk of persecution)
- Gonzales‑Veliz v. Barr, 968 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2020) (upholding A‑B‑ application to reject circular social‑group definitions)
- Amezcua‑Preciado v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 943 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2019) (rejecting groups defined by the risk of persecution as circular)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency deference framework)
- Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009) (limits and context for deference in immigration adjudications)
- Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004) (withholding of removal requires higher, "more likely than not" standard)
- Andrade‑Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2016) (general government ineffectiveness does not alone establish CAT acquiescence)