Rangel-Gonzales v. Bondi
23-6874
2d Cir.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Erdmenger Rangel-Gonzales, a Guatemalan national, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) applications.
- Rangel-Gonzales claimed harm in Guatemala by his girlfriend’s father and potential harm from gangs, arguing membership in a particular social group and political opinion claims.
- The IJ conducted a hearing where the parties agreed that Rangel-Gonzales’s written statement would serve as his direct testimony, and his counsel declined to present additional evidence after cross-examination.
- The BIA determined that the proposed social group was not cognizable and, even if it were, there was no nexus between the harm suffered and his group membership; it also rejected his political opinion claim for lacking support in the record.
- Rangel-Gonzales did not challenge the agency's CAT denial and failed to specify what additional testimony or evidence would have altered the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due Process in Proceedings | IJ denied a full and fair opportunity to present case | Full opportunity was given; no IJ error | No due process violation |
| Membership in a Cognizable Social Group | "Young Guatemalans without protective male figure"; cognizable | Group not cognizable; no nexus to harm | Not cognizable; no nexus |
| Political Opinion as Basis for Persecution | Harm/Threats due to refusal to join gang = opinion | No evidence of political opinion or imputed motive | No political opinion nexus |
| Age as Relevant to Asylum Claims | Agency ignored age as a factor in persecution | Severity not reason for denial | Irrelevant to holding |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (district courts review BIA and IJ decisions together for substantial evidence)
- Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence, legal questions de novo)
- Burger v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2007) (due process in immigration proceedings requires full and fair hearing)
- Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014) (applicant must prove both social group cognizability and nexus)
- Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2005) (persecution must be on account of actual or imputed political opinion)
- Jorge-Tzoc v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2006) (age may be relevant in asylum claims)