Perez-Rabanales v. Sessions
881 F.3d 61
1st Cir.2018Background
- Perez-Rabanales, a Guatemalan national, alleges repeated sexual assaults by Rodrigo De Leon (2003 and again later), resulting in pregnancy and ongoing harassment and physical attacks by De Leon’s family. She and her minor daughter entered the U.S. without inspection in April 2014 and were placed in removal proceedings.
- She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, asserting past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution based on membership in a particular social group.
- Petitioner’s proposed social group: “Guatemalan women who try to escape systemic and severe violence but who are unable to receive official protection.”
- The IJ found Perez credible but denied relief for lack of nexus to a protected ground and denied CAT protection for lack of state acquiescence; the BIA affirmed (adding analysis of social-group cognizability).
- The First Circuit reviewed the BIA and IJ decisions as a unit, applying de novo review to legal questions and substantial-evidence review to factual findings, and denied the petition for judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner’s proposed social group is cognizable | Perez: group defined by gender + inability to obtain protection qualifies as a particular social group | Government: group is overbroad, defined by the harm, and lacks social distinctiveness and particularity | Group not cognizable—fails particularity and social distinctiveness requirements |
| Whether petitioner established nexus between harm and a protected ground (required for asylum/withholding) | Perez: persecution stems from status as a woman unable to obtain protection (fits her social group) | Gov’t: no cognizable social group, so no protected-ground nexus shown | No nexus established; asylum/withholding denied |
| Whether IJ/BIA erred by not separately analyzing past-persecution or humanitarian-parole claims | Perez: agency should have analyzed past persecution and parole | Gov’t: analysis unnecessary because no nexus to protected ground; parole depends on same showing | No error—agency properly declined further analysis given lack of protected-ground nexus |
| Whether petitioner is entitled to CAT protection | Perez: argued risk of torture on return (not developed on appeal) | Gov’t: petitioner failed to show likelihood of torture with government acquiescence | Claim deemed abandoned on appeal; IJ/BIA denial upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Cabrera v. Lynch, 805 F.3d 391 (1st Cir.) (review of BIA decisions and when to treat IJ/BIA as a unit)
- Paiz-Morales v. Lynch, 795 F.3d 238 (1st Cir.) (tripartite test for cognizable social group)
- Matter of M-E-V-G- is an administrative decision cited for social-group doctrine but lacks an official reporter citation and is not listed here
- Villa-Londono v. Holder, 600 F.3d 21 (1st Cir.) (asylum and withholding standards; jurisdictional limits on new group claims)
- Tay-Chan v. Holder, 699 F.3d 107 (1st Cir.) (overbreadth/particularity concerns for social-group definitions)
- Vega-Ayala v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 34 (1st Cir.) (social distinctiveness analysis)
- Burbiene v. Holder, 568 F.3d 251 (1st Cir.) (group must exist independent of persecution)
- Sugiarto v. Holder, 586 F.3d 90 (1st Cir.) (harm alone insufficient absent nexus to protected ground)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. Supreme Court) (substantial-evidence standard for agency factfinding)