Mario Murguia-Briseno v. Attorney General United States, 683 F. App'x 176

Petitioner Mario Murguia-Briseno, a Mexican national and former lawful permanent resident, was removed after multiple criminal convictions and unlawfully reentered the U.S. several times; he was arrested after a 2013 reentry and sought withholding of removal and CAT protection before being removed again.
Murguia-Briseno testified he was kidnapped and beaten in Mexico by four men who may have been police; during one beating they questioned him about murders of two police officers and reportedly called him names including “Sureno.”
He had past (but not active) membership in the Sureno prison gang; he did not report the beatings out of fear of reprisal.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found his testimony credible but denied withholding because he failed to show the attacks were on account of membership in a particular social group; the IJ denied CAT relief for failure to show it was more likely than not he would be tortured if returned.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed: (1) the Sureno membership was not shown to be the reason for the attacks, and (2) the record did not show government acquiescence or a likelihood of future torture; the Third Circuit reviews the BIA decision and denies the petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner established withholding of removal based on membership in a particular social group (Sureno)	Murguia-Briseno argued he was attacked and called “Sureno,” showing persecution on account of gang membership	BIA/IJ: record shows attackers sought information about killings, did not consistently tie attacks to gang membership; no clear nexus to a protected ground	Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA: attacks not shown to be on account of Sureno membership
Whether petitioner met burden for CAT protection (more likely than not to be tortured if returned)	Petitioner argued prior beatings and country conditions create likelihood of future torture	BIA/IJ: petitioner offered no recent threats, no evidence of government acquiescence, and no showing he could not relocate safely	Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA: insufficient objective proof of future torture or government acquiescence

Mahn v. Att’y Gen., 767 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2014) (review of BIA opinion governs scope of appellate review)
Voci v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 607 (3d Cir. 2005) (BIA adoption of IJ opinion affects review of both decisions)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (standard that petitioner must show persecution "on account of" a protected ground; substantial evidence review)
Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. 2002) (explaining the deferential substantial-evidence standard)
Shehu v. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 652 (3d Cir. 2007) (analysis of nexus between harm and protected ground)
Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2014) (prior torture alone insufficient to establish likelihood of future torture)
Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 2002) (burden and standard for CAT relief)