Sandra Martinez-Guerrero v. Merrick Garland, 20-1893

Petitioners Sandra Janneth Martinez-Guerrero and her minor daughter are nationals of El Salvador who applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after receiving death threats.
The threats began after Martinez’s brother-in-law (the victim was the brother of Martinez’s common-law husband) was murdered by gang members for refusing to join them; Martinez believed the killers threatened her family.
Threats included a written note left at Petitioners’ home and an anonymous phone call demanding money and warning they would suffer the same fate; Martinez testified credibly at the hearing.
Petitioners remained in El Salvador for about a year after the threats because Martinez lacked money to flee; during that time she took precautionary steps (moved next door, stayed home or left only with a companion).
An Immigration Judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, concluding the death threats did not amount to past persecution because Petitioners stayed in-country for about a year and suffered no further harm.
The Fourth Circuit granted the petition for review, holding the BIA’s past-persecution ruling was contrary to law and remanding for further proceedings (dissent would have denied relief).

Issue	Martinez's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the death threats constitute past persecution	The death threats (note and anonymous call) amount to past persecution on account of a protected ground	Threats were insufficient because Petitioners stayed in El Salvador ~1 year and suffered no further harm	Court: Death threats can constitute past persecution; BIA’s denial was contrary to law and an abuse of discretion; remand required
Whether BIA properly considered Martinez’s explanation for the delay in leaving	Martinez explained she lacked funds and took protective measures; BIA should consider that unrebutted evidence	Delay undermines claim of persecution and supports BIA’s finding	Court: BIA ignored material, unrebutted explanation; that omission was an abuse of discretion and requires reconsideration
Whether the error as to past persecution affects withholding of removal and CAT claims	Erroneous past-persecution ruling infected withholding and CAT analyses; those claims should be reconsidered on remand	Government maintained the denial of past persecution supports rejection of withholding/CAT claims	Court: Remanded withholding and CAT claims because the past-persecution error likely affected their adjudication
Standard of review applied	N/A	N/A	Court applied de novo review to legal questions and substantial-evidence review to factual findings

Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2005) (defines persecution to include infliction or threat of death or injury)
Bedoya v. Barr, 981 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 2020) (death threats in letters/texts can establish past persecution despite a months-long delay in flight)
Diaz de Gomez v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2021) (recognizes death threats as persecution)
Rodriguez-Arias v. Whitaker, 915 F.3d 968 (4th Cir. 2019) (Board abuses discretion by arbitrarily ignoring relevant evidence)
Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265 (4th Cir. 2011) (past persecution gives rebuttable presumption of well-founded fear of future persecution)
Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2021) (articulates standards of review for BIA decisions)
Zavaleta-Policiano v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2017) (death or injury threats constitute persecution)