Miguel Diaz-Torres v. William Barr, 963 F.3d 976

Miguel Diaz‑Torres, a Mexican agricultural engineer (agronomist), was approached and threatened by Sinaloa cartel members to help cultivate marijuana; he refused and later fled to the U.S. after repeated threats.
He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, asserting membership in the particular social group of "Mexican professionals/agronomists who refuse to cooperate with drug cartels."
Administrative record included Diaz‑Torres’s testimony, news articles about professionals killed in cartel violence, and an expert declaration/testimony describing cartel behavior but not societal recognition of the proposed group.
The IJ and the BIA found the proposed group failed the social‑distinction requirement because there was no objective evidence that Mexican society perceives the group as distinct; petitioner’s testimony alone was deemed insufficient.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether an applicant’s testimony, without corroborating documentary evidence, can satisfy the social‑distinction element of a "particular social group" claim and whether the BIA’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner’s testimony alone can satisfy the social‑distinction requirement	Diaz‑Torres: his credible testimony describing local recognition (including a local term) proves society views the group as distinct	Gov: objective, country‑specific evidence (reports, news, expert analysis) is required; testimony alone is generally insufficient	Testimony alone insufficient unless it persuades the fact‑finder with specific, corroborative facts; here it did not meet the burden
Whether the submitted documentary and expert evidence established social distinction	Diaz‑Torres: news articles and expert declaration support that professionals are targeted, implying social recognition	Gov: articles do not show societal recognition of the group; expert did not opine that society views the group as distinct	The objective evidence did not show Mexican society perceives the group as distinct; expert/accounting evidence failed to bridge gap
Whether the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence	Diaz‑Torres: whole record (testimony + docs) compels a contrary conclusion	Gov: record supports BIA’s finding that social distinction is not shown	Substantial evidence supports the BIA; court will not reverse absent an objectively unreasonable finding

Pirir‑Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir.) (social‑distinction inquiry asks whether society perceives the group as distinct)
Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.) (social‑distinction may be assessed regionally or community‑specific)
Henriquez‑Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.) (legislative or institutional recognition can establish social distinctness)
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir.) (applicant testimony without country evidence failed to show social distinction)
Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir.) (articulating the three‑part BIA test for particular social group)
Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir.) (persecutor’s perception is not the controlling measure of social distinction)
Singh v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.) (credible testimony is accepted as true but may still be insufficient without corroboration)