Maria Garcia-Mata v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, 893 F.3d 1107

Background

Garcia‑Mata, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. as a child, was deported in 2015 after criminal convictions, attempted reentry using a stolen passport, was caught, served a short sentence, and was deported again.
Her husband and father later hired a smuggling group to return her to the U.S.; while in Nogales she stayed in a safe house, observed armed men, and was told the smugglers "will never leave a loose string."
Border Patrol apprehended her entering the U.S.; she was detained as a material witness but was never called to testify against the smuggler.
After detention, the smuggling group sent threatening texts to her husband suggesting Garcia‑Mata had "pointed the finger" and that they would have questions for her when she "got out." The group had possession of her phone and ID in Mexico and contacted her contacts until her phone service was canceled.
The immigration judge found Garcia‑Mata credible, concluded she belonged to the particular social group "witnesses in criminal proceedings who will be targeted in Mexico," found the smuggling organization capable of harming her, and granted withholding of removal as future persecution was more likely than not.
The Board vacated the IJ’s grant, finding the IJ’s conclusions unsupported by the record and Eighth Circuit precedent, described the threats as nonspecific and from unidentified sources, criticized the IJ’s inference about the smugglers’ capability as speculation, and one member dissented asserting only clear‑error review was appropriate for predictive factual findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Board apply the correct standard of review to the IJ’s factual findings?	Garcia‑Mata: Board applied de novo review and substituted its own factual findings in violation of regulations requiring clear‑error review for factfinding.	Government/Board: Board concluded IJ’s findings were unsupported by evidence and precedent and reversed.	Court: Unclear from Board opinion whether it applied clear‑error or de novo review; remanded for clarification.
Did the Board impermissibly engage in its own factfinding?	Garcia‑Mata: Reversal reflects impermissible factfinding rather than review for clear error.	Board: Framed its conclusion as findings not supported by record/precedent.	Court: Cannot tell whether the Board engaged in impermissible factfinding; remand required.
Were the IJ’s predictive findings (future persecution likelihood) clearly erroneous?	Garcia‑Mata: IJ’s credibility and threat assessment supported finding of likely future persecution.	Government: Threats were nonspecific, from unidentified sources, and IJ speculated about smugglers’ capability.	Court: Did not decide merits; remanded for Board to clarify standard and analysis.
Appropriate remedy for procedural or standard‑of‑review error?	Garcia‑Mata: Remand for Board to apply correct standard and reconsider evidence.	Government: Opposed (urged affirmance).	Court: Granted petition for review and remanded to the Board to clarify or reapply correct standard.

Key Cases Cited

Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (agency must follow its own procedures)
SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (agency decisions must state reasoning with clarity)
INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (per curiam) (remand principles for agency proceedings)
Nabulwala v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1115 (BIA lacks authority to engage in new factfinding)
Singh v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 553 (BIA must articulate clear reasoning)
Waldron v. Holder, 688 F.3d 354 (reviewing Board’s stated standard and analysis de novo)
Ramirez‑Peyro v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 637 (court examines both the standard recited and the Board’s analysis)
Osakwe v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 977 (remand to clarify Board’s application of standards)
Suciu v. INS, 755 F.2d 127 (agency must follow its regulations)