Maria Juan Antonio v. William P. Barr
959 F.3d 778
| 6th Cir. | 2020Background
- Maria Magdalena Juan Antonio, a Kanjobal-speaking Mayan woman from Huehuetenango, Guatemala, alleges long‑term domestic violence (beatings, repeated rape, death threats) by her husband, Juan Cano Lorenzo.
- After living in the U.S. (children born in Detroit), the family returned to Guatemala in 2012; Juan moved out in 2013 but continued threats, violate restraining order, beat a child, and allegedly purchased a gun to kill Maria.
- Maria fled Guatemala with two children in June 2014 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in June 2015, asserting membership in the particular social group “married indigenous women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationships.”
- The immigration judge found Maria credible, recognized the group as cognizable and that she suffered past persecution, but denied relief after concluding changed circumstances (physical separation, pending divorce) and that she could reasonably relocate in Guatemala; the BIA affirmed.
- The Sixth Circuit granted review, held the BIA’s conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence (membership, government inability/unwillingness to control perpetrator, and internal relocation), and remanded for reconsideration, including humanitarian asylum and withholding of removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner remains a member of the particular social group (“married indigenous women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationships”) | Maria: She remains a Mayan woman, remains legally married, cannot obtain divorce without surrendering custody, and threats/violence show she cannot effectively leave. | Gov/BIA: Maria lived apart from her husband for over a year and initiated divorce → fundamental change in circumstances; thus no longer a member. | Court: Reversed BIA; substantial evidence does not support finding she left the group — physical separation and an unsuccessful divorce do not establish ability to leave given ongoing threats and contextual country evidence. |
| Whether Guatemalan authorities are willing/able to control the persecutor (government protection) | Maria: Police failed to respond to complaints, restraining order ineffective, judge’s fine and destroyed courthouse do not show effective protection; country reports show impunity and marginalization of indigenous women. | BIA: Restraining order and a fine show government action/willingness to control Juan. | Court: Reversed BIA; record compels conclusion Maria could not reasonably expect government protection given failures to respond and corroborating country conditions. |
| Whether internal relocation within Guatemala would be reasonable | Maria: Threats, petition to locate her, lack of ties/jobs/Spanish fluency, indigenous status, and childcare custody issues make relocation unreasonable and dangerous. | BIA: Record does not show relocation would be unreasonable; petitioner lived in same town for a year without fatal harm. | Court: Reversed BIA; government failed to meet burden to show by preponderance relocation would be reasonable and BIA misapplied/shuffled the burden. |
| Whether humanitarian asylum was waived by failing to raise it separately below | Maria: Humanitarian asylum is not a separate form of relief but a discretionary ground within asylum and thus not waived. | BIA: Petitioner waived humanitarian asylum by not raising it before the IJ. | Court: Reversed BIA on waiver; humanitarian asylum not waived and should be considered on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bi Xia Qu v. Holder, 618 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2010) (presumption of future persecution after past persecution; particular social group analysis)
- Gilaj v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2005) (refugee definition and contextual analysis of persecution)
- Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2009) (persecution includes harm by persons government is unwilling/unable to control)
- Al‑Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980 (6th Cir. 2009) (government assistance standard for non‑governmental persecutors)
- Dieng v. Holder, 698 F.3d 866 (6th Cir. 2012) (factors for assessing reasonableness of internal relocation)
- Mandebvu v. Holder, 755 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2014) (substantial‑evidence standard and reversal only when record compels contrary conclusion)
- Mikhailevitch v. INS, 146 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 1998) (persecution standard requires more than isolated harassment)
- Yu v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2004) (standard for compelling contrary conclusion on review)
- Zhao v. Holder, 569 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 2009) (substantial evidence standard for BIA findings)