Prudencia Jimenez Galloso v. William P. Barr
954 F.3d 1189
| 8th Cir. | 2020Background:
- Galloso, a Mexican citizen, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2001 and was placed in removal proceedings in 2017; she sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- She testified to repeated physical and sexual abuse by two husbands; she never reported that abuse to Mexican authorities.
- Her second husband, Juan Alvarez Casanova, was removed to Mexico in 2012 and has since threatened to “make her disappear” by phone from Campeche; Galloso said she would not contact Mexican police because she believes they are corrupt.
- Galloso claimed persecution based on membership in particular social groups (e.g., Mexican females; married Mexican women unable to leave) and relied on country reports describing police corruption and intimate‑partner homicides in Mexico.
- The IJ denied relief and the BIA affirmed, finding she failed to show a well‑founded fear of future persecution because she did not prove the Mexican government was unable or unwilling to control her alleged persecutor.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo legal issues and for substantial evidence on factual findings and denied the petition for review, concluding Galloso failed to meet her burden to show future persecution.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Well‑founded fear of future persecution by a private actor | Galloso: gov't would be unable/unwilling to control Casanova; country reports show police corruption; she would not seek police help | Gov't/BIA: record lacks individualized evidence gov't would be unable/unwilling; country reports are too general; petitioner never sought help previously | Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA that she failed to show gov't unable/unwilling, so no well‑founded fear or withholding eligibility |
| Proper legal standard for gov't control of private persecutors | Galloso: BIA applied a heightened “condone/helpless” standard | Gov't: controlling standard is unable/unwilling; BIA found failure under either standard | Held: unable/unwilling governs, but no reversible error because BIA/IJ found failure under both standards |
| Timeliness of asylum application / jurisdiction to review | Galloso: asylum application was timely | Gov't: court lacks jurisdiction to review timeliness | Court did not decide jurisdiction or timeliness; denied petition on merits due to failure to show fear |
| Cognizability and membership in particular social groups | Galloso: she is a member of cognizable groups (e.g., Mexican females; married women unable to leave) | IJ/BIA: some groups not cognizable; disputed membership | Not reached on the merits — even assuming cognizability and membership, petitioner failed to prove future persecution |
Key Cases Cited
- Davila‑Mejia v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for BIA decisions)
- Eusebio v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2004) (substantial evidence standard for factual findings)
- Bracic v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2010) (well‑founded fear requires subjective and objective components)
- Miranda v. INS, 139 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 1998) (defining persecution as harm by gov't or by persons gov't unable/unwilling to control)
- Saldana v. Lynch, 820 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2016) (government’s ability to control persecutors is a factual question)
- Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2011) (earlier panel precedent controls when there is intra‑circuit conflict)
- Ngengwe v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2008) (corroboration can show gov't inability/unwillingness when petitioner did not contact police)
- Gutierrez‑Vidal v. Holder, 709 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2013) (failure to meet asylum standard precludes withholding of removal)
- Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2005) (panel language describing a condone/helpless standard)