Omar Galdamez v. Jefferson Sessions
683 F. App'x 571
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Omar Galdamez, a Salvadoran national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on gang-related threats after refusing gang recruitment.
- The IJ denied relief; the BIA affirmed, concluding Galdamez failed to show membership in a cognizable social group or persecution on account of protected grounds.
- Galdamez advanced two primary theories: membership in the social group “Salvadoran young men who refuse to join a criminal organization” (and family membership) and persecution on account of a political opinion (neutrality).
- The BIA applied the particularity and social distinction requirements for social groups and found the proposed groups not cognizable; the BIA’s interpretation received Chevron deference from the Ninth Circuit.
- The court found Galdamez failed to exhaust administrative remedies on the political-opinion (neutrality) claim because it was raised first on appeal.
- Because he failed to show eligibility for asylum, the court held he also failed the higher withholding-of-removal standard; the record likewise did not compel CAT relief (no government-instigated or acquiesced torture shown).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proposed social group (young Salvadoran men who refuse gang recruitment) is cognizable | Galdamez: group is distinct and targeted for persecution for refusing gangs | BIA: group lacks required particularity and social distinction | Court: Affirmed BIA; group not cognizable under precedent and BIA interpretation reasonable |
| Whether family membership qualifies as basis for asylum | Galdamez: persecuted on account of family membership | BIA: evidence insufficient to link persecution to family membership | Court: Substantial evidence supports BIA; claim fails |
| Whether political opinion (neutrality) supports asylum | Galdamez (on appeal): neutrality is protected political opinion motivating persecution | DHS/BIA: claim not raised below; unexhausted | Court: Dismissed/declined review for failure to exhaust administrative remedies |
| Eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief | Galdamez: alternatively entitled to withholding/CAT protection | BIA: higher standard for withholding not met; no government-instigated/acquiesced torture shown for CAT | Court: Denied withholding (higher burden unmet) and CAT relief (record does not compel government involvement/acquiescence) |
Key Cases Cited
- Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir.) (Chevron deference to BIA social-group interpretation)
- Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849 (9th Cir.) (young males resisting gang recruitment not a cognizable social group)
- Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855 (9th Cir.) (young Honduran men who refuse MS-13 recruitment not a particular social group)
- Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738 (9th Cir.) (young men resisting gang intimidation not a particular social group)
- Jie Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir.) (causation standard for asylum allegations)
- Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir.) (exhaustion requirement for claims raised on appeal)
- Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713 (9th Cir.) (exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement)
- Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667 (9th Cir.) (withholding requires higher burden than asylum)
- Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir.) (CAT relief requires nexus to government instigation or acquiescence)
- Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir.) (government acquiescence standard for CAT)