Wendi Silvestre-Giron v. William P. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114

Petitioner Wendi Amarilis Silvestre‑Giron, a Guatemalan national, was previously removed (Jan 2003), unlawfully reentered (Oct 2003), and DHS issued a removal order in Jan 2018. An asylum officer found a reasonable fear and referred her to an IJ.
Family was targeted by unknown extortionists: petitioner's mother and stepfather ran a market vending post and were extorted beginning in 2014; stepfather was shot and killed in Aug 2017 after payments ceased.
After the murder, extortionists threatened petitioner’s mother and children; the mother relocated but was found and threatened again; petitioner testified she would have to live with her mother if removed.
The IJ credited petitioner’s testimony but denied withholding of removal (no nexus to a protected ground/particular social group) and denied CAT relief (no evidence of government consent/acquiescence to torture); the BIA affirmed.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed under the deferential substantial‑evidence standard and considered whether (1) family membership was a central reason for persecution (nexus) and (2) whether public officials would consent, acquiesce, or be willfully blind to torture.
Court held substantial evidence supported the BIA: nexus was lacking because extortionists were motivated by money rather than family membership; CAT relief failed because there was no evidence of prior official knowledge and acquiescence despite a police investigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Withholding of removal — nexus to particular social group (family)	Family membership is a particular social group and was a central reason for threats and murder of stepfather and threats to mother/children	Extortionists targeted family for money (vending post); motive was financial not familial status	Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA/IJ that family membership was incidental to extortion, not a central reason
CAT protection — government consent or acquiescence to torture	Guatemalan authorities are ineffective/willfully blind; investigation failures show acquiescence and risk of torture if returned	Police investigated the murder; record contains no evidence of official participation, prior knowledge, or willful blindness to extortion/torture	Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA that petitioner failed to show government consent/acquiescence or likely torture

Mendez-Gomez v. Barr, 928 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2019) (articulating substantial‑evidence review for withholding/CAT denials)
Osonowo v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (same standard of review authority cited)
Cambara‑Cambara v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2016) (one‑central‑reason nexus explanation)
Garcia‑Moctezuma v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2018) (protected‑ground cannot be incidental to persecutor’s motivation)
Bernal‑Rendon v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard for granting relief requires compelling record evidence)
Juarez‑Coronado v. Barr, 919 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2019) (interpreting CAT acquiescence and record‑as‑a‑whole review)
Garcia‑Milian v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2016) (government inability to prevent gang violence insufficient alone to show willful blindness)
Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405 (8th Cir. 2007) (distinguishing awareness from acquiescence; willful blindness standard)
INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (U.S. 1984) (defining ‘‘clear probability’’ standard for withholding of removal)
Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Ark.–Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281 (U.S. 1974) (administrative decisions may be upheld if agency’s path can reasonably be discerned)