Perez-Trujillo v. Garland
3 F.4th 10
| 1st Cir. | 2021Background
- Nestor Perez‑Trujillo, a Salvadoran who entered the U.S. in 2007 at age 13, testified he was forcibly recruited by MS‑13, resisted, was threatened and beat, and feared return to El Salvador.
- He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief (2008); an IJ denied relief and the BIA affirmed in 2011; Perez‑Trujillo petitioned this Court.
- While the 2011 petition was pending, DHS granted him a special immigrant juvenile visa (2012); an IJ later granted adjustment of status (AOS) (2016), but the BIA reversed that grant (2017).
- Perez‑Trujillo challenged the BIA’s 2011 affirmance of denial of asylum/withholding/CAT and the BIA’s 2017 reversal of the IJ’s AOS grant; the First Circuit consolidated review.
- Court denied the 2011 petition (asylum/withholding/CAT) but granted the 2017 petition, vacating and remanding the BIA’s AOS reversal for failure to consider individualized hardship tied to his former‑gang status.
Issues
| Issue | Perez‑Trujillo's Argument | Govt's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proposed "particular social group" (young male Salvadoran students forcibly recruited who refuse and desert gangs) satisfies immutability/particularity/visibility for asylum | Group is a cognizable, cohesive social group warranting asylum | Evidence is insufficient to show the group is socially visible/cohesive (Larios precedent) | Denied—BIA reasonably found the group lacked requisite social visibility/particularity; asylum and withholding fail |
| Whether El Salvador government acquiesces/willfully blinds itself to gang torture (CAT) | Police indifference and country reports show acquiescence to gang violence against former gang members | Evidence shows government efforts and does not compel finding of acquiescence | Denied—record does not compel conclusion of government acquiescence; CAT relief fails |
| Whether BIA erred by failing to consider individualized hardship (Matter of Arai) when reversing IJ’s AOS grant | BIA legally required to assess individualized hardship, including heightened risk to him as a former gang member, and failed to do so | BIA considered family ties and country violence; any consideration of risk was sufficient | Granted—BIA did not meaningfully consider the individualized risk from former‑gang status; vacate and remand for reconsideration |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review legal claims in AOS denial | Claims assert legal error (failure to apply Matter of Arai) and are reviewable | Denial of AOS is discretionary and largely unreviewable; claims not colorable | Court has jurisdiction to review colorable legal questions; proceeds to decide on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Larios v. Holder, 608 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2010) (rejection of particular social group claim for young men resisting gang recruitment)
- De Pena‑Paniagua v. Barr, 957 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 2020) (particular social group elements: immutability, particularity, visibility)
- Mendez‑Barrera v. Holder, 602 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2010) (social visibility and cohesion requirement for social group)
- Mayorga‑Vidal v. Holder, 675 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2012) (difficulty controlling gangs ≠ government acquiescence for CAT)
- Aldana‑Ramos v. Holder, 757 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2014) (CAT requires government acquiescence; evidence must compel finding)
- Cantarero v. Holder, 734 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2013) (former gang membership generally not a protected social group)
- Mukamusoni v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 110 (1st Cir. 2004) (remand when BIA fails to address salient record evidence)
- Thile v. Garland, 991 F.3d 328 (1st Cir. 2021) (withholding of removal standards following asylum denial)