Pablo-Edwin Pirir-Chitay v. Jefferson Sessions
13-74086
| 9th Cir. | Oct 11, 2017Background
- Petitioner Pablo Edwin Pirir-Chitay, a Guatemalan national, appealed BIA orders: (1) dismissing his appeal from the IJ’s removal decision and denial of asylum, withholding, CAT, and cancellation of removal; and (2) denying his motion to reopen. The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
- Pirir-Chitay conceded he did not suffer past persecution in Guatemala; his claims rely on a fear of future persecution by gangs who perceive him as wealthy or connected to the United States.
- He sought asylum and withholding of removal based on membership in a purported particular social group: people perceived as coming from the U.S. with wealth and therefore targeted for extortion.
- He also sought CAT protection and cancellation of removal; for cancellation he argued his continuous residence began in 1991 when admitted to an ABC program rather than when he received LPR status in 2002.
- The BIA found insufficient nexus between the feared harm and any protected ground, rejected that his ABC status equated to ‘‘admitted in any status’’ for the seven‑year residency requirement, and denied reopening after finding evidence showed generalized gang violence rather than targeted persecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asylum: nexus to particular social group | Membership in group of persons perceived as from U.S./wealth makes him a target for extortion | Persecution was general gang/extortion violence, not on account of protected group | Denied — no causal nexus shown between group membership and feared persecution |
| Withholding of removal | Same nexus supports withholding (higher standard) | No nexus to protected ground, so withholding not met | Denied — petitioner failed to show nexus required under withholding statute |
| CAT protection | He feared torture by gangs on return | BIA denial not challenged in opening brief | Waived — claim forfeited for failure to brief on appeal |
| Cancellation of removal (7‑year residency) | Residency should be measured from ABC program admission in 1991 | Residency begins when lawfully admitted (LPR in 2002); ABC/authorization not ‘‘admitted in any status’’ | Denied — Medina‑Nunez controls; residency counted from 2002, so seven‑year requirement unmet |
| Motion to reopen | New evidence shows relatives were targeted, establishing asylum eligibility | Evidence shows general gang/extortion killings, not targeting on protected ground | Denied — evidence shows indiscriminate violence; no prima facie asylum eligibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (no causal connection between petitioner’s characteristic and attacks supports denial of asylum)
- Duarte de Guinac v. I.N.S., 179 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 1999) (withholding requires nexus to protected ground)
- Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived)
- Medina‑Nunez v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2015) (ABC program participation does not establish ‘‘admitted in any status’’ for cancellation; BIA deference to Reza‑Murillo)
- Delgado‑Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (indiscriminate gang violence does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground)