Orellana-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 677 F. App'x 12

Petitioner Darbin Oliverio Orellana-Rodriguez, a Guatemalan national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on gang threats tied to his family’s military/police past and business success.
IJ denied relief, finding (among other things) that petitioner failed to define a cognizable particular social group and that there was no government acquiescence for CAT.
BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial in a short opinion, concluding the violence did not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground.
Petitioner argued he had explained membership in particular social groups (e.g., families of police/military opposed to gangs; families targeted for relative success) and presented evidence of government corruption and possible complicity.
Second Circuit reviews IJ factual findings under the substantial-evidence standard and legal questions de novo, and concluded the agency’s cursory reasoning prevented meaningful review.

Issue	Orellana-Rodriguez’s Argument	Sessions’ Argument	Held
Whether petitioner defined a cognizable particular social group	He identified groups: families of police/military who acted against gangs; families targeted for relative success	Agency argued no cognizable group or nexus shown	Court held petitioner did articulate groups and agency failed to analyze cognizability; remand required
Whether persecution was "on account of" membership in that group (nexus)	Harm and threats arose because of family’s anti-gang service and status	Agency held violence was not on account of a protected ground	Court found agency’s cursory conclusion insufficient for review; remand for nexus analysis
Whether CAT relief should be denied for lack of government acquiescence	Presented evidence of police/government corruption and complicity with gangs	Agency relied on some government assistance to family to deny acquiescence	Court remanded because agency did not address petitioner’s evidence and may have relied on an approach previously questioned by this Court
Adequacy of IJ/BIA reasoning for appellate review	Argued agency provided insufficient analysis to permit meaningful review	Respondent relied on IJ/BIA conclusions as adequate	Court held minimum analytical explanation lacking and granted petition for review, vacating BIA order and remanding

Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing IJ decision as modified by BIA)
Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (de novo review of legal questions; substantial-evidence for facts)
Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007) (requirements for particular social group)
Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (past persecution/well-founded fear elements)
Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014) (Chevron deference to BIA on social-group construction)
Vumi v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2007) (recognizing kinship ties as basis for particular social group)
Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2005) (opinion must provide minimum level of analysis for meaningful review)
De La Rosa v. Holder, 598 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2010) (expressing doubt about relying on some government assistance to negate acquiescence for CAT)
Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2006) (remand to agency for consideration in first instance)