Quintanilla v. Garland, 3 F.4th 569

Background

Ricardo Quintanilla‑Mejia, a Salvadoran national and former MS‑13 affiliate, was removed from the U.S. after a 1999 felony drug conviction and subsequently reentered unlawfully multiple times; DHS sought to reinstate his prior removal after a 2016 interception.
After his 2010 removal to El Salvador he participated in a government‑sponsored tattoo‑removal and church rehabilitation program and later helped a church in violence‑prevention work aimed at youths.
In El Salvador he was allegedly threatened, beaten by gang members, hospitalized after a 2015 attack, stabbed a gang leader in self‑defense, and fled to Mexico; he did not report gang assaults truthfully to police.
Upon detention in 2016, Quintanilla asserted fear of persecution (religion and social‑group theories) and torture (CAT) if returned; an asylum officer found reasonable fear for CAT but not for withholding and referred him to an IJ.
The IJ denied withholding and CAT relief, reasoning that (1) Quintanilla failed to show a cognizable particular social group (particularity/social‑distinction), (2) nexus to a protected ground was lacking, and (3) he failed to show likely torture by or with Salvadoran officials’ acquiescence; the BIA affirmed, expressly assuming credibility.
On judicial review the Second Circuit applied the applicable jurisdictional and standards (including Nasrallah on CAT reviewability), concluded the BIA/IJ considered the proffered social groups, and held that substantial evidence supports denial of withholding and CAT relief; the petition was denied.

Issues

Issue	Quintanilla's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Credibility determination	IJ erred by not making an explicit credibility finding	BIA presumed credibility on appeal; no remand required	No remand; BIA explicitly assumed credibility and still found evidence insufficient
Withholding — social‑group cognizability	His groups (former gang members who oppose gangs; youth rehabilitators) are cognizable	Groups lack particularity and social distinction per BIA precedent	Denied; IJ considered groups sua sponte and substantial evidence supports rejection
Withholding — nexus to protected ground	Persecution resulted from his rehabilitation/religious work and former membership	Harms were gang enforcement/retaliation, not on account of protected ground	Denied; agency reasonably found persecutors motivated by gang codes rather than protected status
CAT — state acquiescence	Police corruption and government posting of tattoo‑removal publicity show likely acquiescence	Record (including State Dept. reports) shows government is fighting gangs; no evidence officials knew of or acquiesced to attacks on him	Denied; substantial evidence did not compel finding that officials would acquiesce to torture

Key Cases Cited

Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020) (clarifies limited review of withholding orders and more deferential reviewability of CAT findings)
Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669 (2021) (discusses statutory presumption of credibility on administrative appeal and what suffices to rebut it)
Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014) (discusses criteria for identifying a "particular social group")
Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (applicant's failure to adduce evidence can support agency decision under substantial evidence review)
Joaquin‑Porras v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2006) (explains limits of disturbing agency factfinding under substantial evidence standard)
Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2005) (CAT standard: torture or acquiescence by government officials)
Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) (acquiescence requires government awareness and breach of duty to intervene)