Reynaldo Salgado-Sosa v. Jefferson Sessions III
882 F.3d 451
| 4th Cir. | 2018Background
- Salgado‑Sosa, a Honduran national, fled to the U.S. after repeated MS‑13 attacks on his family for refusing extortion; family members were shot at, assaulted, and forced to hide.
- He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; IJ found him credible but denied asylum as untimely, denied withholding for lack of nexus to a protected ground, and denied CAT relief.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ: it agreed family can be a particular social group but held Salgado‑Sosa failed to show MS‑13 targeted him because of family membership (finding motives were extortion/revenge), and declined to consider a new asylum argument not raised before the IJ.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo legal questions and for substantial evidence factual findings, and considered whether the record compels a different nexus finding.
- The court held the record compels that membership in Salgado‑Sosa’s family was at least one central reason for the persecution, vacated the denial of withholding of removal, remanded for further proceedings on that claim, remanded the asylum timeliness denial for reconsideration in light of Zambrano, and affirmed the denial of CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MS‑13’s threats were "on account of" membership in Salgado‑Sosa’s family (nexus for withholding) | Family membership (including relation to stepfather who resisted extortion) was at least one central reason MS‑13 targeted him | Gang targeted family for extortion/revenge, not because of a protected ground; motive is financial/personal, so no nexus | Court: Nexus established — family membership was at least one central reason; vacated denial of withholding and remanded |
| Whether late asylum application qualifies under the §1158(a)(2)(D) "changed circumstances" exception | Conditions in Honduras (post‑2009 coup and intensification of gang danger) materially changed; Crespin‑Valladares recognition of family as a protected group also constitutes a changed circumstance | Argument not exhausted before IJ; BIA properly declined to reach a new legal theory on appeal; discretion over changed‑circumstances findings limits review | Court: Because Zambrano postdates agency decision and may affect the ‘‘intensification’’ analysis, remanded to BIA for consideration in light of Zambrano; exhaustion issue left for agency to address |
| Whether Salgado‑Sosa established CAT protection (torture with government consent/acquiescence) | Country conditions and expert testimony show more‑likely‑than‑not risk of torture if returned | Record does not show likelihood of torture by state actors or with government acquiescence | Court: Denial of CAT relief supported by substantial evidence; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Crespin‑Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing family membership as a cognizable particular social group)
- Zambrano v. Sessions, 878 F.3d 84 (4th Cir. 2017) (intensification of a preexisting threat can qualify as a changed circumstance under §1158(a)(2)(D))
- Hernandez‑Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (4th Cir. 2015) (threats tied to familial relationship satisfy nexus when relationship explains why applicant was targeted)
- Cordova v. Holder, 759 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2014) (focus must be on whether applicant personally was targeted because of protected status)
- Oliva v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 53 (4th Cir. 2015) (BIA erred by treating the immediate trigger for persecution as dispositive when protected status was the real basis for targeting)
- Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2012) (explaining CAT standard requires likelihood of torture by or with acquiescence of government)