Veronica Viuda de Mejia v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, 691 F. App'x 245

Background

Veronica Marcela Helena Viuda de Mejia entered the U.S. without lawful status with her daughter and applied for asylum after fleeing threats and assaults in El Salvador.
She recounted multiple incidents: a teen attempted rape by an MS-13 member, subsequent gang harassment, two assaults demanding “rent”/sex, and a sexual assault by a later employer.
DHS charged inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i); Viuda de Mejia admitted the charges and applied for asylum.
The IJ found her testimony inconsistent and not credible, and concluded she failed to show persecution on account of membership in a particular social group.
The BIA affirmed, adding that even if she were credible she failed to prove membership in a protected social group; Viuda de Mejia then petitioned for review in this court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner exhausted administrative remedies for claiming membership in the group “widows in El Salvador”	Viuda de Mejia contends she was persecuted as a widow and that this group was effectively raised	DHS/BIA: petitioner never raised that exact group before IJ or BIA; claim is new on appeal	Court: Not exhausted; no jurisdiction to review that unraised group
Whether the social groups raised before the agency meet the particularity/social-distinctness requirements	Viuda de Mejia argues she belonged to groups she described (women; widows who rejected gang advances; sister of Esmerelda) and that family membership can be a group	DHS/BIA: groups either not adequately defined or too narrow/unsupported to be socially distinct or immutable	Court: Petitioner waived/failed to develop argument for these groups; agency correctly rejected them
Whether the IJ’s adverse-credibility finding lacked substantial evidence	Viuda de Mejia challenges the IJ’s credibility findings as unsupported and says the adverse finding tainted the decision	DHS/BIA: Even assuming credibility, petitioner still failed to prove membership in a protected social group	Court: BIA’s alternative ruling independent of credibility is dispositive; credibility challenge not outcome-determinative
Whether DHS’s cross-examination and the IJ’s conduct violated due process	Viuda de Mejia claims DHS misstated evidence during cross-examination and the IJ failed to control questioning, causing prejudice	DHS/BIA: procedural objections either raised differently or not before BIA; any errors did not prejudice outcome because the denial rested on alternative grounds	Court: Due-process claim unexhausted and, on the merits, fails for lack of error causing substantial prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Abdulahad v. Holder, 581 F.3d 290 (6th Cir. 2009) (review standards when BIA adopts IJ reasoning)
Slyusar v. Holder, 740 F.3d 1068 (6th Cir. 2014) (substantial-evidence standard for fact and credibility findings)
Rreshpja v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 551 (6th Cir. 2005) (definition of refugee and particular social group/Acosta framework)
Umana-Ramos v. Holder, 724 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2013) (burden on asylum applicant to prove refugee status)
Zaldana Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2015) (particularity and social distinction requirements for social groups)
Ngengwe v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2008) (recognition that widows can constitute a particular social group in some contexts)
Ramani v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion requirement for judicial review of administrative immigration claims)
Khozhaynova v. Holder, 641 F.3d 187 (6th Cir. 2011) (affirming denial where alternative ground independent of credibility supported result)
Daneshvar v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2004) (review of alternative grounds and credibility issues)
Vasha v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 2005) (due-process standards in immigration proceedings)
Gishta v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 972 (6th Cir. 2005) (need to show error plus substantial prejudice for due-process violation)
Mapouya v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2007) (prejudice requirement where credibility or procedural errors alleged)