Villalobos Melendez v. Garland
19-60868
| 5th Cir. | Jul 13, 2021Background
- Petitioners are Honduran nationals: Elder Leonel Villalobos Melendez, his wife Patricia Carlolina Medina‑Zaravia, and their daughter Mery Villalobos‑Medina.
- Family received threats aimed at forcing them to abandon criminal and civil actions in Honduras; they allege these threats amount to past persecution and a fear of future persecution.
- Wife and daughter sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; Elder sought withholding of removal and CAT protection.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals denied relief; petitioners appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
- Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo, and affirmed the denial.
- Court held past harms were not sufficiently “extreme” for asylum; any future fear lacked a protected‑ground nexus; withholding failed given asylum denial; CAT relief failed for lack of state involvement or willful ignorance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners suffered past persecution warranting asylum | Villalobos: threats and harms from coerced abandonment of legal actions constitute past persecution | Garland: incidents do not rise to extreme conduct required for asylum | Denied—harms insufficiently extreme for asylum |
| Whether petitioners have well‑founded fear of future persecution on a protected ground | Villalobos: prior threats show well‑founded fear, possibly on account of political opinion | Garland: any fear is not tied to a protected ground (no nexus) | Denied—future fear not based on protected ground |
| Whether petitioners are entitled to withholding of removal | Villalobos: harms and fear meet higher standard for withholding | Garland: higher standard unmet and asylum denial forecloses withholding | Denied—withholding fails where asylum fails and record lacks required showing |
| Whether petitioners are entitled to CAT protection | Villalobos: corrupt Honduran police and prior harms show likelihood of torture and state complicity | Garland: no evidence of state action or willful ignorance sufficient for CAT | Denied—no clear state involvement or willful ignorance demonstrated |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez‑Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442 (5th Cir.) (standard for reviewing BIA factual findings and legal questions)
- Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339 (5th Cir.) (standards for reviewing relief denials)
- Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590 (5th Cir.) (defining ‘‘extreme conduct’’ required for asylum based on past persecution)
- Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (5th Cir.) (withholding of removal requires a higher showing than asylum)
- Tamara‑Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.) (state action or willful ignorance requirement for CAT relief)
- Orellana‑Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.) (standard that reversal is improper unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion)