Milagro Blanco De Guevara v. William P. Barr, 919 F.3d 538

Milagro Del Carmen Blanco de Guevara and her two minor children entered the U.S. without inspection in 2015; DHS placed them in removal proceedings.
De Guevara conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; her children were derivative applicants.
She testified she received a phone call and letter from gang Mara 18 demanding $1,500 and threatening to kill her or her children; she reported to police but did not show the letter, then fled to the U.S.
The IJ found her testimony not credible due to material inconsistencies between her sworn Border Patrol statement and a later credible-fear interview; the BIA upheld credibility and denied relief on multiple grounds.
The BIA found the threats did not constitute past persecution, that de Guevara failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution, and that her claimed particular social groups (e.g., "Salvadoran female heads of households") lacked particularity and social distinction.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision under substantial-evidence standards and denied the petition for review, holding the BIA’s findings were supported by the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Credibility of testimony	De Guevara contended her testimony was consistent and should be credited	DHS/IJ argued materially inconsistent statements undermined credibility	Court deferred to IJ/BIA credibility finding as supported by specific reasons but reviewed merits as well
Past persecution	De Guevara argued gang threats and extortion amounted to past persecution	BIA/DHS argued threats alone did not rise to past persecution	Threats by phone/letter demanding money did not constitute past persecution
Well-founded fear of future persecution	De Guevara argued she would face future harm if returned	BIA/DHS argued no ongoing threats, family remained unharmed, and fear was generalized	Court held she failed to show an objectively and subjectively well-founded fear of future persecution
Particular social group (PSG)	De Guevara claimed membership in "Salvadoran female heads of households" (and "vulnerable Salvadoran females" on appeal) motivated persecution	BIA argued proposed PSGs lacked particularity and social distinction; persecutory conduct cannot alone define a PSG	Court upheld BIA: "Salvadoran female heads of households" not a cognizable PSG; alternate PSG not preserved for appellate review

I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (standard for judicial review of agency factual findings)
Alemu v. Gonzalez, 403 F.3d 572 (deference to IJ credibility findings when supported by specific reasons)
Sheikh v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1077 (material inconsistencies must be at the heart of the claim to be dispositive)
La v. Holder, 701 F.3d 566 (isolated threats may not constitute past persecution)
Tawm v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 740 (requirements for objectively and subjectively well-founded fear)
Constanza v. Holder, 647 F.3d 749 (generalized fear of gang violence insufficient for asylum)
Cinto-Velasquez v. Lynch, 817 F.3d 602 (Chevron deference to BIA interpretation of "particular social group")
Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (related appellate consideration of BIA guidance on PSGs)