Victor Blanco-Santa Maria v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III
707 F. App'x 384
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Victor Manuel Blanco-Santa Maria, a Salvadoran who entered the U.S. at age 17, applied for asylum, withholding, and CAT protection after gang threats and an assault by MS gang members in El Salvador.
- He testified that gang members repeatedly tried to recruit him, extorted him, and brutally beat him (resulting in hospitalization and surgeries); he fled to the U.S. after fearing for his life.
- Blanco-Santa Maria asserted asylum claims based on membership in a particular social group he defined as “young, male Salvadoran students who wish to pursue professional careers, oppose gang practices, believe in the rule of law, and oppose crime and violence,” and on an anti-gang political opinion.
- The IJ found him credible and sufficiently corroborated but concluded his proposed social group lacked social distinction and that his refusal to join the gang did not establish political opinion motivating persecution; the IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
- The BIA affirmed, concluding there was no nexus between persecution and political opinion, the proposed social group lacked social distinction, and CAT relief was not established. The Sixth Circuit denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proposed social group is cognizable (social distinction) | Blanco-Santa Maria: group narrowed to students; school uniform and targeting of academically successful youth make the group socially distinct | Government/BIA: proposed group not shown to be perceived as a distinct segment of Salvadoran society; generalized gang recruitment undermines distinction | Group lacks social distinction; asylum denied on this ground |
| Whether refusal to join gang or opposing gangs constitutes protected political opinion | Blanco-Santa Maria: his anti-gang stance and refusal to join amounted to an anti-gang political opinion | Government/BIA: refusal to join is not political; petitioner failed to show persecutors viewed him as holding an actual or imputed political opinion | Refusal/opposition alone insufficient; no nexus to political opinion; asylum denied on this ground |
| CAT and withholding of removal claims | Blanco-Santa Maria initially raised these claims | Petitioner waived CAT and withholding on appeal (not pursued in brief) | Claims waived; court did not reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Harmon v. Holder, 758 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing BIA decision that issues its own opinion)
- Dieng v. Holder, 698 F.3d 866 (6th Cir. 2012) (substantial-evidence review standard for factual findings)
- Umana-Ramos v. Holder, 724 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding young Salvadorans who refuse gang recruitment do not form a cognizable particular social group)
- Zaldana Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2015) (particular social group requires social distinction)
- I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (persecution must be on account of political opinion; actor’s motive matters)