Sierra-Alvarado v. Garland
20-60365
| 5th Cir. | Oct 26, 2021Background
- Petitioner Fernando Rigoberto Sierra-Alvarado, a Honduran national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for himself and his minor child after he reported his second son’s murder to police and feared gang retaliation.
- An Immigration Judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, concluding Sierra failed to prove past persecution or a well‑founded fear of future persecution on an enumerated ground.
- The BIA found Sierra’s proposed particular‑social‑group claim failed the particularity/social‑distinction standard and thus did not establish refugee status or withholding eligibility.
- The BIA also denied CAT relief because Sierra offered no evidence it was more likely than not he would be tortured with government acquiescence or involvement; he had had no contact with the gang for several years.
- Sierra petitioned for review to the Fifth Circuit, which reviewed legal issues de novo and factual findings under the substantial‑evidence standard and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to asylum/withholding based on past persecution or well‑founded fear | Sierra: reporting his son’s murder put him at risk of gang retaliation, creating a well‑founded fear | BIA/IJ: Sierra failed to prove past persecution or a well‑founded fear on an enumerated ground | Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA that Sierra did not meet asylum/withholding standard |
| Cognizability of proposed particular social group | Sierra: his circumstances constitute a particular and socially distinct group | BIA/IJ: proposed group lacks required particularity/social distinction under Matter of M‑E‑V‑G‑ | Denied — group fails the particularity/social‑distinction test |
| CAT relief: likelihood of torture with government acquiescence | Sierra: Honduran officials would acquiesce or fail to protect him from gang torture | BIA/IJ: no evidence government would participate in or acquiesce; general claims of official unwillingness insufficient; no recent gang contact | Denied — petitioner did not show torture is more likely than not with government acquiescence |
| Standard of review and sufficiency of evidence | Sierra: argues evidence compels opposite outcome | Government: factual findings entitled to substantial‑evidence deference; legal questions reviewed de novo | Court: applied de novo to legal issues and substantial‑evidence to facts; evidence did not compel contrary result |
Key Cases Cited
- Orellana‑Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (review standards and link between asylum and withholding)
- Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2007) (when BIA adopts IJ findings, court may review IJ decision)
- Carbajal‑Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. 1996) (substantial‑evidence standard: relief improper unless evidence compels contrary)
- Ramirez‑Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2015) (general assertions of official unwillingness to investigate gang violence do not compel CAT relief)