Oralia Juarez-Coronado v. William P. Barr
919 F.3d 1085
| 8th Cir. | 2019Background
- Marroquin, a Guatemalan citizen of Mam ethnicity, entered the U.S. with her minor daughter in 2014 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- She alleged repeated domestic violence and sexual assault by her daughter’s father, Melvin, including beatings, strangulation, and rape, and claimed fear he would harm her or take her daughter if returned.
- Marroquin obtained a six-month restraining order in Guatemala after filing a police report; police once attempted to locate Melvin but did not find him. She did not pursue further police action before leaving for the U.S.
- The IJ denied relief, finding her testimony not credible and alternatively concluding Guatemala could protect her; the BIA affirmed, declining to reach credibility and finding Guatemala was not unwilling or unable to protect her, and denied CAT relief for lack of government acquiescence.
- Marroquin appealed only the merits (BIA did not adopt IJ credibility findings); she conceded the Guatemalan government was willing to intervene but argued it was unable to control Melvin.
Issues
| Issue | Marroquin's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for asylum based on membership in PSG of "Guatemalan women unable to leave a relationship" | She would be persecuted by Melvin and Guatemala is unable to protect her | Guatemala was willing and in practice able to provide protection (restraining order; police responded) | Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA that government was not shown unable/unwilling to protect |
| Withholding of removal (higher standard) | Same facts establish well-founded fear/likelihood of persecution | Failure to meet asylum standard a fortiori fails withholding | Denied — asylum standard not met, so withholding also fails |
| CAT relief — government acquiescence to torture by private actor | Likely to be tortured by Melvin and government would acquiesce or be willfully blind | No evidence of government acquiescence or willful blindness | Denied — substantial evidence supports no likelihood of torture with government acquiescence |
| Reviewability of credibility and Mam-ethnicity claim | Challenges IJ credibility finding and raised ethnic claim | BIA expressly declined to adopt IJ credibility findings; ethnic claim not raised below to BIA | Court declines to review credibility; will not consider Mam-ethnicity claim on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Njong v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard for reviewing BIA factual findings)
- Eusebio v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2004) (substantial evidence review of BIA factual determinations)
- Edionseri v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 1101 (8th Cir. 2017) (persecution must be by government or those it cannot control)
- Romero-Larin v. Sessions, [citation="733 F. App'x 847"] (8th Cir. 2018) (deferring to agency on government-control factual questions)
- Gutierrez-Vidal v. Holder, 709 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2013) (police investigation/arrests weigh against finding government inability to protect)
- Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2008) (CAT standard and definitions of torture)
- Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405 (8th Cir. 2007) (government acquiescence requires more than awareness; willful blindness crosses line)
- Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2008) (reviewing BIA as final agency decision)