Sanchez-Vasquez v. Garland, 994 F.3d 40

Background

Sánchez-Vásquez, a Salvadoran who entered without inspection in 2008, faced removal proceedings and was initially detained and pro se; he later obtained pro bono counsel.
He testified that MS-13 members twice threatened to kill him if he refused to join; they told him “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” They did not mention his religion.
He distributed anti-gang pamphlets as part of participation in a Christian youth group, but did not testify that gang persecution was motivated by his Christianity.
The IJ denied asylum (time-bar), CAT (no government nexus), and withholding of removal (no persecution on account of religion or other protected ground); Sánchez-Vásquez does not challenge asylum or CAT rulings on appeal.
On appeal to the BIA he submitted country-condition documents for the first time, asked the BIA to take administrative notice that Evangelical Christians are targeted by gangs, and sought remand to the IJ; the BIA refused to take notice, denied remand, and affirmed the IJ.
The First Circuit denied the petition for review, finding substantial evidence supported the agency’s denial of withholding and the BIA did not abuse its discretion in handling the proffered evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Withholding of removal on account of religion	Sánchez-Vásquez: gang threats and his Christian activities show persecution on account of religion	Gov't: record shows harassment was motivated by refusal to join gang, not religion	Denied — substantial evidence supports that the central reason was refusal to join MS-13, not religion; withholding properly denied
Failure to preserve / merits of social-group claim	Sánchez-Vásquez: he raised membership in Christian-based groups before the IJ and was entitled to consideration	Gov't: social-group argument was not raised with specificity; BIA alternatively rejected the groups on the merits	Waived/rejected — petitioner did not challenge BIA’s alternative merits ruling and perfunctory briefing forfeited the claim
Administrative notice by the IJ of country-condition materials	Sánchez-Vásquez: IJ should have taken administrative notice that Evangelical Christians are targeted	Gov't: documents were not presented to the IJ; taking notice is discretionary and not required	Rejected — IJ could not have erred by failing to notice evidence never presented to it; BIA properly declined notice
BIA refusal to remand / deny motion to reopen based on late proffer	Sánchez-Vásquez: BIA abused discretion by denying remand since he was a detained, non‑English pro se litigant and documents supported his claim	Gov't: movant must show abuse of discretion; documents were available and petitioner received continuances and help	Denied — no abuse of discretion; BIA reasonably found documents available earlier and petitioner received opportunities and assistance to obtain them

Key Cases Cited

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (perpetrators' motive relevant to asylum/withholding nexus)
Singh v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (statutorily protected ground must be a "central reason" for harm)
Chhay v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (CAT requires nexus to government official)
Morgan v. Holder, 634 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2011) (treats denial of withholding and refusal to remand together in review)
Yang Zhao-Cheng v. Holder, 721 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2013) (BIA has wide discretion to take or decline administrative notice)
Perera v. Holder, 750 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2014) (administrative notice appropriate for commonly known facts or official documents)
Mazariegos v. Lynch, 790 F.3d 280 (1st Cir. 2015) (BIA’s refusal to take notice or remand not arbitrary when record does not support movant)
Sela v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2008) (relatives’ continued presence without harm can undercut future fear of persecution)