Santos Garcia v. Garland, 67 F.4th 455

Marco Danilo Santos Garcia, a Guatemalan national, entered the U.S. in April 2016 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after credible-fear referral.
Santos testified he supported the FCN political party in 2015 and that members of the dissolved Lider party threatened and assaulted him in March–April 2016 to extort money, including death threats and one limited physical assault that required no medical treatment.
Santos reported the incidents to police but contends they did not investigate; he left Guatemala because he felt his life was in danger and had no other relatives there.
The IJ found Santos credible but concluded the incidents did not rise to past persecution, the motive was extortion (not political opinion), and he lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution; the IJ also deemed Santos’s CAT claim waived.
The BIA affirmed, holding (1) the extortion/threats were not sufficiently menacing to constitute persecution, (2) Santos failed to establish nexus to a protected ground, and (3) he lacked a well‑founded fear of future persecution. Santos raised an additional particular‑social‑group claim on appeal that he had not exhausted below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Santos suffered past persecution	Santos: repeated death threats, extortion, and one assault qualify as past persecution	Government: threats/assaults were extortionary, not severe enough to constitute persecution	No — substantial evidence supports BIA that harm did not rise to persecution
Whether harm was on account of political opinion / FCN membership (nexus)	Santos: attackers targeted him for FCN support; mixed motive analysis applies	Government: attackers sought money; motive was extortion, not political animus	No — BIA reasonably found motive was extortion, not a protected ground
Whether Santos established a well‑founded fear / entitlement to presumption of future persecution	Santos: continued threat from attackers, country conditions, and allegations against FCN create fear	Government: no continuing threat shown; Lider dissolved; Santos unaware anyone was seeking him	No — no presumption (no past persecution) and record lacks evidence of a well‑founded fear
Exhaustion of administrative remedies for particular social group (Indigenous Mam male)	Santos (on appeal): claims persecution as Indigenous Mam male	Government: claim was not raised to IJ or BIA, so unexhausted	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — claim was not exhausted before the agency

Vilela v. Holder, 620 F.3d 25 (1st Cir.) (defines threshold for persecution beyond harassment)
Lobo v. Holder, 684 F.3d 11 (1st Cir.) (credible verbal death threats can constitute persecution if sufficiently menacing)
Sok v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 48 (1st Cir.) (death threats as possible basis for persecution analysis)
Chen v. Lynch, 814 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2016) (upheld BIA finding of no past persecution despite beatings and threats)
Nelson v. INS, 232 F.3d 258 (1st Cir.) (persecution requires more than unpleasantness or harassment)
Mazariegos-Paiz v. Holder, 734 F.3d 57 (1st Cir.) (substantial‑evidence review standard explained)
Dorce v. Garland, 50 F.4th 207 (1st Cir.) (review of BIA factual findings under substantial evidence standard)
Ruiz-Escobar v. Sessions, 881 F.3d 252 (1st Cir.) (record must compel contrary conclusion to overturn BIA)
Hincapie v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 213 (1st Cir.) (appellate deference to agency factual findings)
Ravindran v. INS, 976 F.2d 754 (1st Cir.) (failure to raise issues below waives claim on review)
Fabian-Soriano v. Barr, 925 F.3d 552 (1st Cir.) (exhaustion requirement for administrative claims)
Chen v. Holder, 703 F.3d 17 (1st Cir.) (agency deference on legal issues within its expertise)