Natalio Perez-Aguilon v. Loretta Lynch, 674 F. App'x 457

Perez-Aguilon, a Guatemalan national, was placed in removal proceedings after arriving in the U.S.; he conceded removability for unlawful presence but an IJ found his prior forgery conviction petty and not a basis to remove him for a crime of moral turpitude.
He applied for asylum (not challenged on appeal), withholding of removal, and CAT relief, asserting membership in the proposed social group “civilian witnesses who assist law enforcement against criminal enterprises.”
Factual basis: he was shot during a 1998 carjacking (perpetrators later convicted), testified at trial, later received threats from the shooter’s accomplices, and experienced gang-related threats/robberies while working as a bus driver in Tierra Nueva; he relocated to Tierra Nueva in 2001 and lived there two years without retribution for testifying.
The IJ found him generally credible but denied asylum as untimely, denied withholding because he had not shown past persecution or that internal relocation was unreasonable, and denied CAT relief for lack of state involvement/acquiescence.
The BIA affirmed, rejecting arguments about past persecution, the particularity/social-distinctness of the proposed group, and CAT remand; Perez-Aguilon timely petitioned for review in the Sixth Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Perez-Aguilon)	Defendant's Argument (Government/Board)	Held
Past persecution under INA withholding standard	Threats and shooting related to his testimony and gang intimidation amount to past persecution on account of membership in a particular social group	Attacks were by private actors without nexus to a protected ground; state prosecuted shooter, so government was able/willing to protect him	No past persecution; substantial evidence supports BIA/IJ findings
Particularity/social distinctness of proposed social group	Civilian witnesses who assist law enforcement are a cognizable, particular social group	Proposed group lacks boundaries and societal perception as distinct	Court declined to decide because withholding denied on other grounds
Reasonable internal relocation	Relocation to Tierra Nueva is unreasonable because threats and gang activity persist	Perez-Aguilon lived in Tierra Nueva for two years without retribution; general gang violence is not persecution	Relocation is reasonable; petitioner waived challenge to IJ finding and substantial evidence supports it
CAT relief / need for remand for country‑condition analysis	IJ failed to evaluate probative value of human-rights reports and thus remand required under Mostafa	IJ admitted country‑condition exhibits, expressly considered 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3) factors, and found no state acquiescence to torture	No remand; IJ adequately considered CAT factors and denied relief (no likely state‑sponsored torture)

Sanchez-Robles v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 688 (6th Cir.) (treatment of BIA opinions that adopt IJ reasoning)
Morgan v. Keisler, 507 F.3d 1053 (6th Cir.) (deference to BIA statutory interpretation)
Marouf v. Lynch, 811 F.3d 174 (6th Cir.) (substantial-evidence review standard for factual findings)
Umana-Ramos v. Holder, 724 F.3d 667 (6th Cir.) (withholding standard requiring nexus to protected ground)
Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429 (6th Cir.) (definition of persecution and government inability/unwillingness)
Haider v. Holder, 595 F.3d 276 (6th Cir.) (aggregate analysis of facts when all incidents relate to protected activity)
Mostafa v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 622 (6th Cir.) (remand where agency ignored controlling precedent and country‑condition evidence)
Mapouya v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 396 (6th Cir.) (requirement to analyze CAT claims under regulatory factors)
Alhaj v. Holder, 576 F.3d 533 (6th Cir.) (CAT requires state involvement, consent, or acquiescence)