Pereanez-Betancur v. Sessions
679 F. App'x 37
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Jhovany Pereanez-Betancur, a Colombian national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after FARC members threatened him and recruiters targeted young men; he reported FARC activity to police.
- IJ denied relief; BIA affirmed. This Court reviews the IJ decision as modified by the BIA (assuming credibility) and reviews factual findings for substantial-evidence and legal conclusions de novo.
- Petitioner claimed persecution based on membership in a proposed particular social group: "Colombian males ages 12–25 who cooperate with authorities in resisting FARC."
- Petitioner also sought CAT protection, arguing FARC threats and alleged governmental willful blindness made torture likely if returned.
- The agency found the claimed social group insufficiently particular and socially distinct and concluded petitioner failed to show torture more likely than not with government acquiescence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner’s proposed social group is a cognizable particular social group for asylum/withholding | Group of Colombian males 12–25 who cooperate with authorities resisting FARC qualifies as a particular social group | Group is too broad/common (age and gender) and not shown to be viewed as socially distinct; persecution by common adversary does not define a group | Denied — group lacked required particularity and social distinction |
| Whether petitioner established nexus between persecution and membership in proposed social group | FARC targeted him for being a young male who cooperated with police | Evidence showed FARC targeted him before reporting; no proof FARC targets that distinct group because of group membership | Denied — no nexus to a cognizable social group |
| Whether petitioner is entitled to CAT relief based on likelihood of torture with government acquiescence | FARC threats plus alleged government willful blindness make torture more likely than not | Colombian government has taken measures against FARC; record does not compel inference of government knowledge or willful blindness sufficient for CAT | Denied — substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief |
| Standard of review applied on petition for review | (procedural) Court should review IJ as modified by BIA and treat credibility as assumed | Respondent urges deference to agency factual findings under substantial-evidence review | Court applied de novo review of legal questions and substantial-evidence review of facts, assuming credibility per precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir.) (assume credibility where BIA modified IJ decision)
- Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir.) (same principle on review posture)
- Niang v. Holder, 762 F.3d 251 (2d Cir.) (legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93 (2d Cir.) (elements of asylum/withholding claims)
- Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70 (2d Cir.) (immutable-characteristic requirement)
- Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir.) (social visibility and particularity limits for young men resisting gangs/FARC)
- Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir.) (acquiescence standard for CAT: knowledge or willful blindness)
- Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156 (2d Cir.) (substantial-evidence review of CAT denial)
- Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir.) (factfinder’s role in weighing competing inferences)