Primitivo Alavez-Hernandez v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
714 F.3d 1063
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Primitivo Alavez-Hernandez and Ines Ruiz-Cruz, Mexican citizens, sought withholding of removal after conceding removability in 2006 removal proceedings.
- They alleged persecution in their village San Miguel Aloapam by Catholic villagers targeting Evangelical Christians and their families for religion and social group membership.
- Attacks included threats, beatings, and denial of basic services; local police refused to assist; villagers allegedly cut off water, power, and access to land and supplies.
- The families relocated to Oaxaca City; later their land in the village was seized; they faced ongoing economic marginalization but eventually adapted in Oaxaca City.
- They are Zapotec and primarily Spanish-limited, arguing economic discrimination and social hardship in Oaxaca City due to religion and ethnicity; they had nine years in Oaxaca City with no attacks there.
- An evidentiary record showed the couple’s continued worship in Evangelical churches; one child has a respiratory condition requiring medication; Primitivo entered the U.S. without inspection in 1997.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the village conditions amounted to past persecution | Primitivo and Ines contend the Village conditions were persecution. | BIA/JI found conditions not severe enough to amount to persecution. | Not persecution; conditions not life-threatening, even when combined. |
| Whether relocation within Mexico defeats a threat of future persecution | Relocation would not remove risks of persecution in other areas. | Relocation to Oaxaca City would avoid future persecution. | Relocation to Oaxaca City would be reasonable to avoid persecution; no withholding. |
| Whether the overall record shows severe detrimental conditions when viewed cumulatively | Cumulative deprivation supports persecution. | Economic and other harms do not reach the threshold of persecution. | Record does not compel a finding of persecution when considering cumulative harms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beck v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2008) (economic restrictions can constitute persecution if life or freedom threatened)
- Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2005) (economic discrimination alone not enough without more)
- Ngengwe v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2008) (consider cumulative severity of alleged events)
- Bracic v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2010) (persecution involves more than low-level intimidation)
- Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard for reviewing withholding of removal findings)
- Wijono v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2006) (control of standard for assessing persecution and relief)
- Makatengkeng v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2007) (adopts same substantial evidence framework on appeal)
- Cubillos v. Holder, 565 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2009) (legal question of whether record supports persecution finding)