74 F.4th 1
1st Cir.2023Background
- Petitioners Jose David Sanchez, his wife Sara Rivas‑Alvarenga, and their son sought asylum, withholding, and CAT relief after leaving El Salvador (Sanchez March 2014; Rivas and son October 2016).
- Sanchez testified he received two mid‑Feb 2014 extortion demands (claimed Barrio 18) for $100/week at his fruit stand; he left after learning of family members previously tortured/killed for refusing extortion.
- Rivas testified she received a September 2016 armed demand for $3,000 that referenced her husband in the U.S.; five days later she left El Salvador with their son.
- Both petitioners were found credible by the IJ, but the IJ denied relief: held the group “Salvadoran business owners perceived as wealthy” was not a valid particular social group (PSG); the Sanchez‑Rivas nuclear family could be a PSG but there was no nexus because the harms were motivated by extortion, not kinship.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted the IJ’s factual findings and legal conclusions; this petition for review challenges those determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument (Sanchez/Rivas) | Respondent's Argument (Garland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “Salvadoran business owners perceived as wealthy” is a particular social group | Group is cohesive, perceived as wealthy, and targeted because of that status | Business ownership/being perceived wealthy is not immutable or socially distinct | Not a PSG — BIA/IJ reasonably found lack of immutability and social distinctiveness |
| Whether membership in the Sanchez‑Rivas nuclear family is a PSG and nexus exists | Nuclear family is a cognizable PSG and threats targeted them because of family membership | Even if family can be a PSG, here harm was motivated by extortion/financial gain, not kinship | Nuclear family can be PSG but no nexus — threats were extortionate, not because of family membership |
| Whether petitioners showed persecution / well‑founded fear for asylum | Past and threatened extortion, plus family murders, establish persecution or well‑founded fear | Threats were criminal extortion lacking protected‑ground nexus; harm below persecution standard | Denied asylum — substantial evidence supports lack of protected‑ground nexus (court didn’t reach alternative persecution‑level analysis) |
| Whether withholding of removal / CAT relief was warranted | Same facts satisfy the higher withholding standard and CAT | Withholding not shown for same reasons; CAT not argued on appeal | Withholding denied (heavier standard unmet); CAT claim waived on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnica‑Lopez v. Garland, 59 F.4th 520 (1st Cir. 2023) (persecution must be "one central reason" for harm)
- Hernandez‑Martinez v. Garland, 59 F.4th 33 (1st Cir. 2023) (articulating three‑part PSG test: immutability, particularity, social distinction)
- Mayorga‑Vidal v. Holder, 675 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2012) (source for circuit’s PSG framework)
- Aldana‑Ramos v. Holder, 757 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2014) (nuclear family can be a particular social group in some circumstances)
- Ruiz‑Escobar v. Sessions, 881 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 2018) (family identity must be at root of persecution)
- Perlera‑Sola v. Holder, 699 F.3d 572 (1st Cir. 2012) (distinguishing kinship from shared non‑kin reasons for persecution)
- Chen v. Lynch, 814 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2016) (well‑founded fear standard and pathways to proof)
- INS v. Cardoza‑Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (standard for well‑founded fear vs. "more likely than not" withholding standard)
- Dorce v. Garland, 50 F.4th 207 (1st Cir. 2022) (substantial‑evidence review of IJ factual findings)