Ruben Cambara-Cambara v. Loretta E. Lynch, 837 F.3d 822

Ruben and Mario Cambara-Cambara, Guatemalan brothers, entered the U.S. without inspection (2001 and 2004) and filed asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims in 2009.
Their family (landowners/farmers) experienced repeated extortion, threats, and violent attacks by Maras 18 gang members over many years, including an attack on their father in December 2008 and murders of relatives.
Neither brother testified to having been personally threatened or harmed; some family members remain in Guatemala and were not threatened; one brother serves in Guatemala’s National Civil Police.
The IJ found the asylum applications untimely (filed after the one-year limit) and denied relief alternatively for lack of past persecution, lack of a cognizable social group, and lack of nexus to a protected ground; BIA affirmed.
BIA: rejected changed/extraordinary circumstances argument, assumed "Cambaras as a family" could be a social group but found no nexus showing targeting because of family membership, held "educated landowners and farmers" not a cognizable group, and found no government acquiescence for CAT.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of asylum filing	2008 attack on father constituted changed circumstances excusing late filing	BIA: ongoing prior threats; no changed/extraordinary circumstances	Court lacks jurisdiction to review BIA discretionary timeliness finding; asylum time-bar upheld
Cognizability of social group	Members of the Cambara family / educated landowners and farmers are a particular social group	Government: perceived wealth, not family status, motivated gangs; alternative group not cognizable	BIA assumed family could be a group but rejected "educated landowners and farmers"; no relief on group basis
Nexus to a protected ground (withholding)	Pattern of targeting family members shows persecution "on account of" family membership	Persecution was based on wealth/target as extortion victims, not familial status	Substantial evidence supports BIA: no proof gangs targeted them because of family membership; withholding denied
CAT — government acquiescence	Police inability to stop gangs shows acquiescence/willful blindness	Government: police investigated but could not apprehend perpetrators; inability ≠ acquiescence	Substantial evidence that government did not acquiesce; CAT relief denied

Miah v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for withholding: "clear probability" of persecution)
Alemu v. Gonzalez, 403 F.3d 572 (8th Cir. 2005) (withholding standard and review principles)
Bernal-Rendon v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2005) (family membership as a potential particular social group)
Constanza v. Holder, 647 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2011) (gang violence commonality undermines particularized nexus)
Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2008) (extortion/robbery not tied to a particular social group)
Purwantono v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2007) (discretionary factual findings on timeliness/extraordinary circumstances not judicially reviewable)
Bin Jing Chen v. Holder, 776 F.3d 597 (8th Cir. 2015) (jurisdictional limits on review of asylum timeliness determinations)
Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405 (8th Cir. 2007) (government acquiescence requires more than inability; willful blindness standard)
Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2005) (police incapacity does not necessarily show acquiescence)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (applicant must show persecution motivated by a protected ground)