Maria Belen Perez-Zenteno v. U.S. Attorney General
913 F.3d 1301
| 11th Cir. | 2019Background
- Maria Perez-Zenteno, a Mexican national, and her son were placed in removal proceedings after entering the U.S. without valid documents; Perez-Zenteno sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT.
- She testified that in 2013 her five-year-old daughter was kidnapped in Mexico, she paid ransom, was subsequently abducted, beaten, raped, threatened, and later threatened again after cooperating with police; she fled to the U.S. in 2015.
- Perez-Zenteno claimed persecution "on account of" membership in a proposed particular social group: "Mexican citizens targeted by criminal groups because they have been in the United States and they have families in the United States."
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) found her credible as to the abuse and fear, but concluded the proposed group was not a cognizable particular social group (insufficient particularity and social distinctness) and found no nexus to a protected ground.
- A single-member Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, holding the group was not socially distinct, was circularly defined by the harm, and that the IJ’s nexus finding was not clearly erroneous.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo legal questions and for substantial evidence factual findings, and denied the petition, agreeing the group was not cognizable and that no nexus was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Perez-Zenteno's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proffered group qualifies as a "particular social group" under the INA | The group is based on immutable past U.S. presence/family ties, thus cognizable | The group is amorphous, overbroad, circularly defined by risk of harm, and not socially distinct | Denied — group not cognizable (insufficient particularity and social distinctness) |
| Whether the BIA/IJ single-member decision warrants Chevron deference | Plaintiff implicitly urges court to reject government deference argument | Government relies on Chevron deference to BIA precedent and framework | Court assumed result same with or without Chevron; denied petition on merits regardless |
| Whether petitioner demonstrated nexus between persecution and a protected ground | Perez-Zenteno points to kidnappers referencing her husband in the U.S. and that she "came back from the United States" | Government argues evidence does not show targeting because of U.S. ties | Denied — substantial-evidence supports IJ finding of no nexus |
| Whether humanitarian asylum can bypass showing a protected-ground nexus | Perez-Zenteno suggested humanitarian asylum need not rest on a protected ground | Government and court note humanitarian asylum still requires refugee status (persecution on account of protected ground) | Denied — humanitarian asylum claim fails because refugee nexus requirement not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for judicial deference to reasonable agency statutory interpretations)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (limits on Chevron deference; precedential value matters)
- I.N.S. v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) (applying Chevron principles to immigration law)
- Quinchia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 552 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2008) (single-member BIA decisions may receive limited or no Chevron deference)
- Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2006) (discussing BIA deference and limits on particular social group doctrine)
- Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399 (11th Cir. 2016) (deferring to BIA on particular social group interpretation)