Raul Plaza-Ramirez v. Jefferson B. Sessions III
908 F.3d 282
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- Raul Plaza-Ramirez, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2001 and was placed in removal proceedings in 2010 after apprehension in New York.
- He alleged a 1999 gang attack in Mexico by members of Los Negros who beat him with a metal pipe after mistakenly thinking he was affiliated with a rival gang; subsequent threats occurred and he left Mexico nine months later.
- Plaza-Ramirez sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; he conceded asylum was time‑barred and focused his appeal on withholding based on membership in a "particular social group" (his family).
- The immigration judge denied relief, finding (1) no nexus between the attack and family membership and (2) the attack/threats did not rise to persecution; the Board affirmed.
- He raised additional arguments on appeal (asylum/CAT, due process, Pereira-based cancellation), but the court found those waived or inappropriate for the first‑time raise and denied remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaza‑Ramirez’s family is a particular social group for withholding | He was targeted because he is kin to a gang‑affiliated cousin | Family can be a PSG in general, but facts must show nexus here | Court accepts family can be a PSG but finds no nexus here |
| Whether the 1999 attack and later threats constitute persecution | Attack and threats created a well‑founded fear of persecution | Attack was a case of mistaken identity and later events show generalized violence, not targeted persecution | Substantial evidence that the conduct did not rise to persecution |
| Whether there was sufficient nexus between harm and the protected ground | He was attacked on account of kinship with cousin | He admitted attackers mistakenly associated him with a rival gang; no threats to other family members | No nexus; attack motivated by mistaken gang affiliation, not family membership |
| Procedural/other claims (asylum timeliness, CAT, due process, Pereira remand) | Raised various claims on appeal and sought remand for cancellation after Pereira | Asylum conceded time‑barred; CAT and due process not raised below so waived; remand inappropriate—administrative reopening is proper path | Court finds asylum/CAT/due process waived or meritless; denies remand and directs administrative reopening if sought |
Key Cases Cited
- Halim v. Holder, 755 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2014) (reviewing Board and IJ when both decisions are considered)
- Orellana‑Arias v. Sessions, 865 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing factual findings)
- Tsegmed v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 2017) (elements for withholding: PSG and nexus)
- W.G.A. v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2018) (family can be a particular social group; distinguishing facts showing gang targeted family)
- Sirbu v. Holder, 718 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2013) (limits on Board deferring to court precedent and standards of review)
- Sobaleva v. Holder, 760 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2014) (Board must exercise independent judgment on persecution)
- Stanojkova v. Holder, 645 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 2011) (discussion of distinguishing persecution from general violence)
- Lozano‑Zuniga v. Lynch, 832 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2016) (generalized violence does not support asylum/withholding)
- Ghani v. Holder, 557 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2009) (issues not raised before the Board are waived)