Oscar Pacas-Renderos v. Jefferson Sessions III
691 F. App'x 796
4th Cir.2017Background
- Petitioner Oscar Pacas-Renderos, a Salvadoran national, was deported to El Salvador in Sept. 2008 and attacked by MS-13 gang members three days later after refusing to join; he sustained serious injuries and returned to the U.S. illegally about six weeks later.
- He was later arrested in the U.S.; DHS reinstated his prior removal order and referred him to withholding-only proceedings after an asylum officer found no reasonable fear.
- At a 2015 hearing Pacas-Renderos testified about the 2008 attack, threats to him and family (including two cousins murdered in 2015), and his belief police would not protect him; family testimony was inconsistent on whether police took a report.
- The immigration judge denied withholding of removal (INA) and CAT relief: (1) no nexus between persecution and an imputed anti‑gang political opinion or membership in a cognizable social group (Renderos family; “perceived Americanized non-community members”), and (2) no government acquiescence for CAT protection.
- The BIA adopted and supplemented the IJ’s decision, emphasizing lack of evidence that MS-13 perceived petitioner as holding an anti‑gang political opinion and noting police aid after the attack; Pacas-Renderos petitioned for review.
Issues
| Issue | Pacas-Renderos' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nexus: imputed anti-gang political opinion | Gang imputed anti-gang opinion from his refusal to join; that motivated the attack and future harm | Record shows attack was motivated by extortion/recruitment, not a perceived political opinion | Denied — substantial evidence supports lack of nexus to political opinion |
| Nexus: membership in Renderos family | Future persecution likely because of kinship ties to cousins murdered by MS-13 | No evidence MS-13 associated petitioner with those cousins or targeted him for kinship | Denied — substantial evidence supports lack of nexus to family membership |
| Particular social group: “perceived Americanized non-community members” | Group described by cultural/behavioral traits and outsider status; petitioner fits and faces risk | Group not immutable, particular, or socially distinct; traits are amorphous and changeable | Denied — group not a legally cognizable "particular social group" under INA |
| CAT: government acquiescence to torture | Salvadoran police/govt turn a blind eye to gang torture; country conditions show corruption and weak police | Local police transported petitioner to hospital; record does not compel finding of official acquiescence | Denied — substantial evidence supports conclusion government would not acquiesce |
Key Cases Cited
- Hui Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d 921 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard of review and substantial-evidence review for withholding)
- Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685 (4th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2011) (social-group cognizability and acquiescence analysis)
- Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190 (4th Cir. 2014) (substantial-evidence review and CAT acquiescence standard)
- Yi Ni v. Holder, 613 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2010) (nexus requirement where no evidence of perceived political opinion)
- Oliva v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 53 (4th Cir. 2015) (definition of "particular social group" applying BIA framework)
- Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) ("at least one central reason" formulation for nexus)
- Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2009) (political belief must be more than incidental to persecution)