Ramirez-Gonzalez v. Sessions
698 F. App'x 644
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner San Humberto Ramirez-Gonzalez, a Guatemalan national, applied for asylum and withholding of removal after being chased and beaten by gang members who sought to recruit him.
- He argued persecution based on membership in proposed particular social groups: (1) “young males with discernible ability to earn money” and (2) “young Guatemalan men who face gang violence.”
- An Immigration Judge denied relief, finding he was targeted for recruitment, not because of membership in a protected group.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ’s decision on May 18, 2016.
- Ramirez-Gonzalez petitioned this Court for review; the Second Circuit reviewed both the IJ and BIA decisions and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner suffered past persecution on account of membership in a particular social group | Ramirez-Gonzalez: gang violence was motivated by his membership in proposed groups (young males with earning ability; young Guatemalan men facing gang violence) | Government: attacks were gang recruitment efforts, motivated by criminal incentives, not protected-group membership | Denied — agency reasonably found targeting for recruitment, not on account of a protected ground |
| Whether the proposed groups are legally cognizable particular social groups | Ramirez-Gonzalez: groups are discrete and recognized segments vulnerable to gang violence | Government: groups are overbroad/amorphous and/or defined by the harm suffered | Denied — groups lacked particularity and could not be defined solely by the harm |
| Whether petitioner has a well‑founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground | Ramirez-Gonzalez: risk of future gang violence supports well-founded fear | Government: no protected ground established, so no basis for future persecution claim | Denied — no protected-ground showing, so no well‑founded fear established |
| Whether withholding of removal is warranted | Ramirez-Gonzalez: met asylum standard, so withholding should follow (higher standard) | Government: petitioner failed to meet asylum standard | Denied — asylum not established, so withholding (higher standard) also fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (court reviewed both IJ and BIA opinions for completeness)
- Gjolaj v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 468 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2006) (standards of review in immigration appeals)
- Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014) (requirements for a cognizable particular social group)
- Rodas Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (well‑founded fear and nexus to protected ground)
- Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 1998) (issues not argued are considered waived)
- Ucelo‑Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007) (rejection of social‑group definitions tied solely to criminal incentives)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (withholding of removal requires a higher standard than asylum)