Rigoberto Figueria-Lopez v. U.S. Attorney General
662 F. App'x 740
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Rigoberto Figueroa-Lopez, a Guatemalan citizen, sought asylum alleging fear of gang persecution after refusing to join Maras and reporting them to police.
- The Immigration Judge denied asylum based on adverse credibility findings and lack of nexus to a protected ground; the BIA dismissed the appeal on those alternative bases.
- Figueroa-Lopez contends the BIA evaluated his claim as rooted in fear of gang recruitment/reprisal rather than membership in his Evangelical church, and failed to give reasoned consideration to religious‑membership grounds.
- The administrative record included Figueroa-Lopez’s testimony, a sworn border‑patrol statement, a credible‑fear interview transcript, and an affidavit from his father and a letter from his pastor.
- The IJ and BIA cited inconsistencies: (1) border statement saying he came to work and did not fear returning; (2) differing dates of threats (Aug. 28 v. Aug. 29, 2012); and (3) father’s affidavit indicating threats from multiple gangs, not specifically tied to church membership.
- The BIA concluded threats were motivated by his refusal to join/reporting the gangs—not his Evangelical church membership—and found the record insufficient to show one central reason for persecution was a protected ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the BIA give reasoned consideration to claim based on church membership? | Figueroa‑Lopez: BIA failed to evaluate claim as based on membership in Evangelical Church. | Government/BIA: Applicant never raised church‑membership theory before BIA; BIA addressed religion evidence as presented. | Held: Claim waived; BIA gave adequate consideration to arguments and evidence actually presented. |
| Was the adverse credibility determination supported by substantial evidence? | Figueroa‑Lopez: Testimony credible; inconsistencies immaterial. | BIA/IJ: Multiple inconsistencies (border statement, dates, father’s affidavit) justify adverse credibility finding. | Held: Substantial evidence supports adverse credibility; record does not compel reversal. |
| If credible, did petitioner show persecution on account of a protected ground (nexus)? | Figueroa‑Lopez: Persecution was on account of his Evangelical church membership. | BIA: Evidence shows threats were due to refusal to join/report gangs, not religion; pastor’s letter and testimony do not show others persecuted for church membership. | Held: Even if credible, petitioner failed to show one central reason for threats was church membership. |
| Was reversal required under substantial evidence standard? | Figueroa‑Lopez: Record compels reversal because BIA misapplied nexus analysis. | BIA/Government: Record supports findings; not compelled to reverse. | Held: Petition denied; record does not compel reversal under deferential review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruiz v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (substantial‑evidence review of factual findings and standards for adverse credibility findings)
- Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762 (11th Cir. 2007) (review of BIA decisions and when to review IJ findings)
- Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941 (11th Cir. 2010) (when BIA adopts IJ findings, court reviews both decisions)
- Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir. 2006) (BIA need not address every claim or piece of evidence if it gives reasoned consideration)
- Xia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 608 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2010) (even a single inconsistency can support an adverse credibility determination)