Pedro Hernandez-Lopez v. Jefferson Sessions, III
696 F. App'x 664
5th Cir.2017Background
- Petitioners Elsa Lopez-Lopez and her son Pedro Alex Hernandez-Lopez sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after threats/violence in Guatemala.
- The IJ denied relief; the BIA affirmed. Petitioners appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which reviews the BIA primarily and applies substantial-evidence review to factual findings.
- The Government argued the petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the particular social groups they raised before the court but had not preserved before the BIA.
- The BIA found the preserved particular-social-group definitions insufficiently particular or socially visible, consistent with Fifth Circuit precedent rejecting similar gang-related or broadly defined groups.
- The BIA also concluded the reported harm arose from a personal/family dispute or general criminality, not a protected ground, and found no evidence petitioners faced torture more likely than not if returned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Lopez-Lopez/Hernandez-Lopez: seek review of social-group definitions raised to BIA | Government: petitioners failed to exhaust claims for social groups first asserted before BIA | Court: lack of jurisdiction to review unexhausted social-group claims; those claims dismissed |
| Particular social group adequacy | Petitioners: members of family/people targeted by gangs or as women in Guatemala form protected groups | Government: proposed groups are amorphous, not particular or socially visible | Court: BIA correctly rejected the preserved group definitions as insufficiently particular/visible |
| Nexus to persecutory motive (asylum/withholding) | Petitioners: attacks/violence stem from protected-group status | Government: violence arose from personal family dispute or general criminality, not protected ground | Court: record supports BIA that harm was personal/criminally motivated; asylum and withholding denied |
| CAT standard (torture more likely than not) | Petitioners: feared serious harm/torture if returned | Government: no evidence of past torture or likelihood of future torture; petitioner did not report incidents to police | Court: substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief; petitioners failed to show more likely than not they'd be tortured |
Key Cases Cited
- Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (discussing review of BIA decisions and when IJ decision impacts BIA)
- Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580 (standard of review for legal questions and factual findings)
- Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (rejecting overly broad gang-related particular social groups)
- Adebisi v. INS, 952 F.2d 910 (persecution based on personal dispute, not protected ground)
- Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653 (withholding requires higher showing than asylum)
- Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341 (substantial-evidence review for CAT denials)
- Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885 (failure to report incidents to police relevant to CAT/asylum claims)