Santiago Martinez-Galarza v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
782 F.3d 990
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Martinez-Galarza, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. unlawfully in 1986, departed after voluntary departure in 1999, and reentered in 2000; ICE arrested him in Oct. 2010 and commenced removal proceedings.
- While detained in 2010, he claims ICE promised to help him remain and obtain a work permit in exchange for information about his nephew, Adrian Parias Sanchez; Sanchez was arrested and removed in Nov. 2010.
- Martinez-Galarza conceded removability before an IJ, designated Mexico as the country of removal, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, CAT protection, and voluntary departure.
- He asserted membership in a proposed particular social group of people who provided information to ICE ("ICE informants" or "witnesses for ICE") and claimed fear of retaliation from Sanchez for allegedly "ending his American dream." He acknowledged his asylum application was untimely but argued changed/extraordinary circumstances excused delay.
- The IJ denied asylum as untimely and on the merits (social group lacked particularity/social visibility); denied withholding (failed asylum standard) and CAT relief (no government-sponsored torture). The BIA reversed the timeliness ruling but adopted the IJ’s merits findings, concluding the threat was personal retaliation and not on account of membership in a protected social group, and declined to address claims not argued on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether asylum was timely or excused | Martinez-Galarza: Sanchez's Nov. 2010 removal was a changed/extraordinary circumstance excusing late filing | Government/IJ: Application was untimely | BIA found changed circumstances excused timeliness; court affirmed BIA’s ultimate denial on merits |
| Whether membership in proposed particular social group (ICE informants) supports asylum | Martinez-Galarza: He is an ICE informant/witness threatened for that membership | Government: Threats are personal retaliation by Sanchez, not because of protected group membership | Court: Held fear was personal retribution, not on account of membership in a particular social group; asylum denied |
| Whether withholding of removal is warranted | Martinez-Galarza: Past/future persecution supports withholding | Government: He fails to meet lower standard because no nexus to protected ground | Court: Declined to overturn BIA; withholding denied (no separate substantive argument preserved) |
| Whether CAT protection or voluntary departure apply | Martinez-Galarza: Generally referenced persecution factors | Government: Claims were not properly raised/argued before BIA | Court: Claims waived for failure to brief/challenge; CAT and voluntary departure not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Ismail v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2005) (BIA decision reviewed as final agency action)
- Omondi v. Holder, 674 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 2012) (substantial-evidence standard for factual findings)
- Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2013) (personal retaliation, absent protected motive, does not establish asylum nexus)
- Eusebio v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2004) (past persecution based on personal animosity is not asylum-qualifying)
- Marksmeier v. Davie, 622 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2010) (issues not argued on appeal are waived)