Marla Lopez-Diego v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III
704 F. App'x 576
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Marla Lopez-Diego and her minor son Derian Ramirez-Lopez, Honduran citizens, entered the U.S. in March 2014 without admission and conceded removability; both applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- They claim persecution based on membership in the Garifuna ethnic group and fear targeted violence from unidentified killers who murdered Derian’s father in 2011.
- Relevant facts: family eviction from ancestral coastal land for a hotel development, alleged economic discrimination against Garifunas, two men visited after the father’s murder asking for Derian, and general high crime in Honduras.
- The IJ found the petitioners credible but denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; the BIA affirmed.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard and concluded petitioners failed to show past persecution, a nexus between harm and a protected ground, or likelihood of torture by or with acquiescence of government actors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners suffered past persecution on account of Garifuna status | Lopez-Diego: eviction and discrimination were motivated by Garifuna status and amount to persecution | Government: eviction was land-development action and discrimination/economic harms did not rise to persecution or show a protected-ground nexus | Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA that eviction and discrimination were not persecution nor motivated by protected ground |
| Whether petitioners have a well-founded fear of future persecution | Petitioners: fear of targeted violence from father’s killers and generalized gang/crime violence | Government: feared violence is private/indiscriminate crime, not persecution by actors the state cannot control | Denied — generalized violence and private threats insufficient without nexus to protected ground or state inability/unwillingness to control perpetrators |
| Eligibility for withholding of removal (clear probability standard) | Petitioners: same facts imply likelihood of persecution if returned | Government: higher standard not met because asylum standard fails | Denied — failure to meet asylum standard forecloses withholding claim |
| CAT protection (likelihood of torture by/with consent of officials) | Petitioners: fear of severe harm upon return | Government: no evidence torture is likely or that government officials would instigate/acquiesce | Denied — record does not show torture more likely than not or government involvement/acquiescence |
Key Cases Cited
- Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429 (6th Cir.) (government control or unwillingness to control perpetrators required for persecution)
- Stserba v. Holder, 646 F.3d 964 (6th Cir.) (nonphysical harms can be persecution; lists harms that qualify)
- Bi Qing Zheng v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 287 (6th Cir.) (presumption of future fear after past persecution; burden distinctions)
- Umaña-Ramos v. Holder, 724 F.3d 667 (6th Cir.) (widespread gang violence alone insufficient for asylum)
- Zaldana Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491 (6th Cir.) (private actors’ violence and general crime do not per se constitute persecution)
- Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980 (6th Cir.) (withholding of removal requires clear probability of persecution)
- Hamida v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 734 (6th Cir.) (definition of torture under CAT requires government instigation or acquiescence)
- INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (U.S.) (standard for withholding of removal)