Marroquin-Rivera v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 7

Rossemari Marroquín-Rivera, a Guatemalan national, entered the U.S. unlawfully in August 2010 and conceded removability.
She applied for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) and for CAT protection, claiming fear of harm tied to her relationship with a now-deceased boyfriend who was a Guatemalan police officer.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Marroquín credible but determined she had not suffered past persecution; threats were aimed at her boyfriend to stop his investigation, not at her for an enumerated ground.
The IJ concluded Marroquín had not shown a clear probability of future persecution and that internal relocation within Guatemala was reasonable.
The IJ denied the CAT claim for lack of evidence that government officials would acquiesce to torture; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Marroquín suffered past persecution	She testified she and her unborn child received threats from gangs because she dated a police officer	Threats were directed at the boyfriend to stop his investigation; not motivated by an enumerated ground against Marroquín	BIA and IJ found no past persecution; substantial evidence supports that finding
Whether she established entitlement to withholding of removal (future persecution)	Likely to be targeted by the same actors who killed her boyfriend because of the relationship	Fear is speculative; she could reasonably relocate within Guatemala to avoid harm	Denied: she failed to show clear probability of future persecution; internal relocation reasonable
Whether objective evidence supports her fear	She points to her testimony about threats and relationship to a police officer	Government notes lack of objective evidence linking current gang motivation to harm her	Court held record contains substantial evidence supporting BIA/IJ conclusion that objective basis is lacking
(Related) Whether CAT protection required finding of government acquiescence	She argued private-actor harm could be foreseeable and officials might acquiesce	Government argued no evidence officials would consent or fail to prevent torture	BIA/IJ denial of CAT relief affirmed (not challenged here on review)

Lopez Perez v. Holder, 587 F.3d 456 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard for withholding: "clear probability")
Ordonez-Quino v. Holder, 760 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2014) (substantial-evidence review of BIA factual findings and de novo review of legal issues)
Larios v. Holder, 608 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2010) (administrative deference principles in immigration appeals)