Maria Dolores Fuentes-Erazo v. Loretta E. Lynch
848 F.3d 847
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Maria Dolores Fuentes-Erazo and her minor son entered the U.S. in 2014 and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on past domestic abuse by former partner Elvis Santos and fear of future harm in Honduras.
- Fuentes testified to repeated psychological, physical, and sexual abuse by Santos in the 2000s, but she left him in 2009 and lived in various Honduran towns for about five years without contact from Santos; she later had a second child with another man.
- Fuentes did not report Santos to police at any time and offered testimony that she avoided him until her 2014 departure; she claimed she could not safely live with family members who lived near Santos and feared he could now travel to find her.
- The IJ denied asylum and withholding, finding Fuentes failed to show membership in her proposed particular social group ("Honduran women in domestic relationships who are unable to leave") and that the Honduran government would be unable or unwilling to protect her; CAT relief was denied for lack of evidence of state acquiescence to torture.
- The BIA affirmed; the Eighth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and de novo on legal issues and denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fuentes is a member of a cognizable particular social group and persecuted on account of that membership | Fuentes: she belongs to "Honduran women in domestic relationships who are unable to leave" and suffered/perhaps will suffer persecution by Santos on that account | Gov't: Fuentes left Santos and lived freely for years, so she is not a member of the proposed group and nexus is lacking | Court: Substantial evidence that Fuentes failed to demonstrate membership/nexus; asylum/withholding denied |
| Whether Honduran government would acquiesce in future torture (CAT) | Fuentes: systemic domestic-violence impunity means reporting would be futile and government would acquiesce | Gov't: Fuentes never reported Santos; no evidence government had awareness of or acquiesced to Santos’s abuse | Court: Fuentes failed to show government awareness or acquiescence; CAT relief denied |
| Whether country-condition evidence required a different outcome | Fuentes: documentary evidence of widespread domestic violence compelled finding of government inability/acquiescence | Gov't: such evidence does not compel finding of acquiescence absent proof government knew of specific perpetrator’s conduct | Court: Record does not compel conclusion of state acquiescence despite systemic problems; BIA had discretion |
| Whether failure to report was excused by futility | Fuentes: reporting would have been futile given impunity and limited protection | Gov't: failure to report deprived state of opportunity to protect; futility not established | Court: Evidence of futility insufficient to overcome absence of reporting; Menjivar and related precedent support denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Ngugi v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard for substantial-evidence review of BIA factfinding)
- Salman v. Holder, 687 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2012) (deference to BIA legal interpretations)
- Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (2006) (membership in a particular social group requires factual findings mapped to statute)
- Gonzalez Cano v. Lynch, 809 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 2016) (petitioner must first prove membership in a cognizable particular social group)
- De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375 (8th Cir. 2013) (proof of membership is prerequisite to asylum/withholding claims)
- Safaie v. I.N.S., 25 F.3d 636 (8th Cir. 1994) (elements required for particular social group–based asylum claims)
- Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2008) (standards for withholding and CAT burdens)
- Saldana v. Lynch, 820 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2016) (state acquiescence and inability to control private actors; discretionary BIA analysis)
- Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2005) (failure to report undermines claim that government was unable or unwilling to control persecutor)
- Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405 (8th Cir. 2007) (government willful blindness can constitute unlawful acquiescence)
- Garcia v. Holder, 746 F.3d 869 (8th Cir. 2014) (requirements for showing acquiescence in CAT context)
- Gutierrez-Vidal v. Holder, 709 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2013) (failure to show persecution is fatal to asylum claim)