934 F.3d 47
1st Cir.2019Background
- Petitioner Pedro Antonio Ramírez‑Pérez, a Guatemalan national, entered the U.S. without inspection in May 2015 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- In Guatemala Ramírez earned relatively high wages, dated a woman (Delmy) who also had a relationship with a Barrio 18 gang member, and experienced three gang encounters in 2015 involving demands for money and threats.
- Ramírez did not report any incidents to police and suffered no significant physical injury during the encounters.
- He claimed a well‑founded fear of future harm based on membership in a proposed particular social group (men romantically involved with partners of gang/cartel members) and alleged government acquiescence to gang violence for CAT relief.
- The IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; the BIA affirmed. Ramírez petitioned this Court for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner belongs to a cognizable "particular social group" for asylum | Ramírez: men who had romantic involvement with partners of drug dealers/gang members form an immutable, socially distinct group | Government: proposed group is amorphous, lacks particularity and social visibility; petitioner failed to show cognizable group | Denied: group lacks required particularity (overbroad, undefined boundaries); asylum and withholding claims fail |
| Whether past incidents amount to persecution supporting asylum | Ramírez: three encounters and threats demonstrate persecution and future risk | Government: incidents do not rise to persecution; petitioner did not seek police protection | Denied: incidents not persecution under governing standards |
| Whether petitioner is entitled to withholding of removal | Ramírez: higher standard met given fear of gang violence | Government: petitioner cannot meet the higher withholding standard absent asylum predicate or stronger evidence | Denied: failure to meet asylum standard disposes of withholding claim |
| Whether petitioner is entitled to deferral under the CAT (government acquiescence) | Ramírez: gangs and state actors jointly enable torture; country reports show infiltration and brutality | Government: record lacks petitioner‑specific evidence of likely torture or government acquiescence | Denied: substantial evidence supports BIA — past encounters not severe enough, no showing government acquiescence or clear probability of future torture |
Key Cases Cited
- Nako v. Holder, 611 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2010) (review of BIA adopting IJ and further justifying conclusions)
- Rivas‑Durán v. Barr, 927 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2019) (standards for de novo legal review and substantial evidence for factual findings)
- Vásquez v. Holder, 635 F.3d 563 (1st Cir. 2011) (agency deference principles)
- Vega‑Ayala v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2016) (particular social group immutability and requirements)
- Paiz‑Morales v. Lynch, 795 F.3d 238 (1st Cir. 2015) (particularity requirement for social group)
- Pérez‑Rabanales v. Sessions, 881 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2018) (social‑distinction requirement and perception in home society)
- Granada‑Rubio v. Lynch, 814 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2016) (exhaustion of social‑group definitions presented to the BIA)
- Amouri v. Holder, 572 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2009) (usefulness and limits of country reports in CAT claims)
- Gurung v. Lynch, [citation="618 F. App'x 690"] (1st Cir. 2015) (burden for showing government acquiescence to torture)