Noel Canales-Rivera v. William Barr
948 F.3d 649
| 4th Cir. | 2020Background
- Noel Aristides Canales-Rivera, a Honduran who ran a roasted-chicken business, was extorted and threatened by Mara 18; he closed his business and fled to the U.S.
- Canales applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, asserting persecution "on account of" membership in the particular social group "merchants in the formal Honduran economy."
- The IJ found Canales credible but denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; the IJ described the asserted group as those who defied gangs.
- The BIA dismissed his appeal, explicitly evaluating the proposed group and holding that being a merchant in the formal economy is not an immutable characteristic and that the gang extortion constituted general criminal conduct, not persecution on account of the proposed group.
- Canales petitioned the Fourth Circuit, arguing (1) the Agency improperly bars merchant-based asylum claims (challenging Acosta’s application) and (2) his due-process rights were violated when the IJ/BIA failed to adopt his social-group formulation or hear his argument.
- The Fourth Circuit denied the petition: it held the BIA permissibly concluded the proposed group is not a cognizable particular social group, found no prejudicial due-process violation, rejected Canales’s effort to rely on Supreme Court religious-freedom decisions to invalidate Acosta as inapplicable, and affirmed the BIA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "merchants in the formal Honduran economy" is a "particular social group" | Canales: merchants share immutable traits (self-determination/self-sufficiency) and are a discrete, visible group | Agency/BIA: merchant status is changeable (not immutable); Acosta framework bars such occupational groups | BIA and court: group not legally cognizable for asylum (not immutable) |
| Whether the Agency’s reliance on Acosta reflects a non-neutral policy barred by Supreme Court religious-liberty decisions | Canales: Acosta’s immutability rule is inconsistent with Hobby Lobby/Masterpiece/Braunfeld and improperly non-neutral toward merchants’ conscience claims | Agency: argument was not raised below (exhaustion); Supreme Court religious cases concern RFRA/First Amendment and do not bear on INA asylum categories | Majority: exercised jurisdiction but found those Supreme Court cases inapplicable to asylum/INA; concurrence would dismiss for failure to exhaust |
| Whether IJ/BIA procedures violated due process by not addressing Canales’s social-group argument or by substituting the Agency’s view | Canales: IJ failed to consider his proposed group and denied him a fair hearing | Agency: any IJ omission was cured because the BIA expressly considered the exact proposed group on de novo review | Court: no prejudice; BIA properly reviewed the group on appeal, so no due-process violation affected outcome |
| Whether gang extortion of merchants constitutes persecution "on account of" a protected ground | Canales: extortion/threats targeted him as a merchant and amount to persecution | Agency: extortion is general criminal conduct, not persecution on account of protected social-group membership | Court: agrees with BIA that general criminal extortion does not establish persecution on account of the proposed social group (also noting plaintiff abandoned some challenges) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rusu v. I.N.S., 296 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2002) (asylum: subjective and objective fear standards and due-process baseline)
- Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2011) (adopting Acosta-derived three-part particular-social-group criteria)
- Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (immutability and fundamentality to identity requirement)
- Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2006) (occupation not necessarily an immutable characteristic for social-group purposes)
- Nadmid v. Holder, 784 F.3d 357 (7th Cir. 2015) (business owners’ profession insufficient to establish particular social group)
- Huaman-Cornelio v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995 (4th Cir. 1992) (BIA, not IJ, issues final administrative asylum determinations)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes)
- Ramirez v. Sessions, 887 F.3d 693 (4th Cir. 2018) (limits on exhaustion requirement granularity; distinguishing wholly new legal theories)