Teodoro Reyes Aguilar v. Attorney General United States
703 F. App'x 139
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Teodoro Reyes Aguilar, a Salvadoran business owner, was extorted by Mara Salvatrucha (MS); after he criticized the gang and expressed support for vigilante action, MS increased demands and threatened his family.
- Aguilar fled to the U.S., conceded removability, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection alleging past persecution and fear of future persecution based on political opinion and membership in particular social groups (e.g., people adverse to gangs or who fled MS).
- The IJ found Aguilar credible but concluded the extortion/threats were motivated by pecuniary gain (and personal animus), not a protected ground, denied asylum/withholding, and rejected CAT relief.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ, accepting that extortion is generally pecuniary and finding Aguilar failed to show the gang’s actions were motivated by a protected ground rather than by financial motives or personal animus.
- The Third Circuit held Aguilar’s credited testimony supported a mixed-motive theory (the gang cited his statements when increasing demands) and vacated and remanded to the BIA to assess whether his statements amounted to political opinion or membership in a particular social group; CAT denial was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nexus/mixed-motive: Were gang’s increased threats motivated at least partly by a protected ground? | Aguilar: gang increased demands explicitly because he "talked badly" about them—mixed motive (partly political/social). | Gov't: extortion is pecuniary; any increase was for money or personal animus, not protected status. | Court: Aguilar’s credible testimony supports a mixed-motive finding; remand to BIA to assess nexus. |
| Political opinion: Did Aguilar’s statements constitute a political opinion? | Aguilar: criticizing MS and endorsing vigilante responses expresses a political opinion against gangs. | Gov't/IJ/BIA: criticism was not made in a political context. | Held: BIA must explain and reassess whether statements amount to political opinion; remand required. |
| Particular social group: Were the proposed groups (e.g., persons adverse to gangs or who fled MS) sufficiently particular and socially distinct? | Aguilar: groups include those who speak out against MS or support vigilantes—protected social groups. | Gov't: groups are insufficiently particular/socially distinct. | Held: BIA did not analyze; remand for BIA to evaluate particularity and social distinction. |
| CAT protection: Was Aguilar likely to face torture with state acquiescence? | Aguilar: threatened and harmed; sought CAT relief. | Gov't: record lacks proof of torture or likely torture with state consent/acquiescence. | Held: Affirmed denial of CAT; record does not show torture likelihood or state involvement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sesay v. Attorney General, 787 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2015) (standard of review and credibility/factual review framework)
- Gonzales-Posadas v. Attorney General, 781 F.3d 677 (3d Cir. 2015) (substantial-evidence review)
- Ndayshimiye v. Attorney General, 557 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2009) (mixed-motive standard: protected status must be at least one cause)
- Chang v. INS, 119 F.3d 1055 (3d Cir. 1997) (applicant need only show persecution caused at least in part by protected group)
- Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 2002) (CAT standard: more likely than not tortured if removed)
- Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Attorney General, 663 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 2011) (treatment of BIA precedent on extortion/persecution)