Miriam Peralta De Esquivel v. Attorney General United State
686 F. App'x 147
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Miriam Nineth Peralta De Esquivel entered the U.S. in 2007 and filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in 2012; her asylum claim was time-barred and not at issue on appeal.
- Peralta alleges threats and a murder by her ex–brother-in-law Gonzalo López Cabrera, a Guatemalan narcotics trafficker; she claims he threatened her at a funeral and later threatened her sister and family.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) credited Peralta’s testimony and found some corroboration but denied withholding of removal and CAT relief, concluding she failed to show persecution on account of a protected ground or the required probability of future persecution.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ, finding (1) Peralta’s proposed particular social group (“Guatemalan women related to narcotics traffickers”) was not socially distinct and (2) she failed to prove a more-likely-than-not risk of future persecution.
- Peralta appealed only the denial of withholding of removal to the Third Circuit, which reviews the BIA’s decision under the substantial-evidence standard and will deny the petition unless the record compels a different result.
Issues
| Issue | Peralta's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether Peralta is a member of a cognizable particular social group | Peralta: she is a Guatemalan woman related to narcotics traffickers and thus targeted | Gov’t: the group is not socially distinct or sufficiently particular; narcotics involvement is widespread | Held: Group not cognizable—insufficient social distinction and group definition issues |
| 2) Whether Peralta established entitlement to withholding of removal (clear probability of persecution) | Peralta: Cabrera threatened to kill her and her family and previously murdered her step-brother, creating a well‑founded fear of future persecution | Gov’t: threats were remote in time, no evidence of post-threat attempts to locate or harm her or her family; family members remain unharmed in Guatemala | Held: No clear probability; lack of recent threats/contact and family safety undermine objective fear of persecution |
| 3) Timeliness of asylum application and related relief | Peralta: (not raised on withholding appeal) | Gov’t: asylum was time-barred and no exception was shown | Held: IJ found asylum time‑barred; BIA affirmed (procedural background supporting relief denial) |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2001) (standard for reviewing BIA’s reliance on IJ decisions)
- I.N.S. v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (substantial‑evidence standard in immigration proceedings)
- Kang v. Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2010) (court will not reverse unless record compels different result)
- Mulanga v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2003) (definition of clear probability standard for withholding)
- Cardoza–Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) ("more likely than not" standard explained)
- Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. 2002) (well‑founded fear subjective/objective test)
- Li v. Att’y Gen., 400 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2005) (threats constitute persecution only in narrow, severe circumstances)
- Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530 (3d Cir. 2005) (family remaining safely in country reduces reasonableness of proposed claimant’s fear)