Remberto Aguinada-Lopez v. Loretta E. Lynch
825 F.3d 407
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Remberto Aguinada-Lopez, a Salvadoran who entered the U.S. illegally, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- He described four violent incidents in El Salvador involving gangs (Dieciocho and MS-13 ties via his cousin Oscar Gil), including beatings, gunfire, and threats; his cousin Oscar was later killed by gang members.
- The Immigration Judge found Aguinada-Lopez credible but denied all relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, adopting and adding reasoning.
- Petition limited claims to withholding of removal (family- and school-based "particular social groups") and CAT; asylum was time-barred and not appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit reviews factual findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo, and it denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether family-based groups (male, gang-aged family members of murdered gang members; of cousin Oscar) qualify as "particular social groups" and establish nexus for withholding | Aguinada-Lopez argued he and similarly situated male relatives are targeted because of family relationship to a murdered gang member (Oscar) | BIA argued groups lack particularity/visibility and that petitioner failed to show gangs target his family as a distinct group; no sufficient nexus | Court assumed, arguendo, the groups could be cognizable but affirmed denial for failure to establish nexus (single incident tied to Oscar insufficient) |
| Whether attendance at the National Industrial Technical Institute (male, gang-aged members of the Institute) is a cognizable social group and supports withholding | Aguinada-Lopez argued students at the Institute are specifically victimized by gangs and thus form a protected group | Government argued evidence did not show past persecution tied to Institute membership sufficient to prove nexus or probability of future persecution | Court found group might be cognizable but affirmed denial for lack of nexus / insufficient past persecution evidence |
| Whether petitioner showed likelihood of torture and government acquiescence for CAT relief | Aguinada-Lopez relied on country-condition evidence of police corruption and inability to control gangs to show acquiescence | Government pointed to evidence of anti-gang efforts, elite units, and programs showing no systemic acquiescence by authorities | Court held petitioner failed to show government acquiescence or that torture was more likely than not; CAT claim denied |
| Procedural: whether asylum time-bar decision was reviewable | Aguinada-Lopez did not appeal the IJ/BIA time-bar ruling on asylum | Government maintained time-bar decision stands | Court noted asylum decision not appealed and did not consider it further |
Key Cases Cited
- Setiadi v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review when BIA adopts IJ decision but adds reasoning)
- Gonzalez Cano v. Lynch, 809 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 2016) (elements for withholding: cognizable social group and nexus)
- Antonio-Fuentes v. Holder, 764 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 2014) (rejection of broad family-based group where gangs did not specifically target family as a group)
- Constanza v. Holder, 647 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2011) (family suffering gang violence lacked particularity and visibility as a social group)
- Bernal-Rendon v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2005) (nuclear family may be a social group but petitioners must show specific threat to family as group)
- Eusebio v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2004) (single attack tied to group membership may not rise to past persecution)
- Solis v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2008) (government’s inability to control violence is not acquiescence in torture)
- Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405 (8th Cir. 2007) (awareness of torture by government without more does not constitute acquiescence)