Williams Baina Antezan v. U.S. Attorney General
707 F. App'x 680
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Antezan, a Bolivian national, fled to the U.S. after his investment firm Orion Bolivia lost investors’ funds through a third party; investors threatened him and his family.
- He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief asserting persecution based on membership in a particular social group: the 24 original Orion Bolivia investors.
- The IJ found Antezan credible but concluded the harassment did not amount to past persecution on a protected ground, the proposed group lacked particularity and social distinction, and CAT relief was speculative. The BIA affirmed.
- The government obtained a remand to the BIA to reconsider the particular-social-group analysis under Matter of M-E-V-G- and mixed-motive theory; the BIA again denied relief, finding no social distinction or nexus to a protected ground and insufficient evidence of likely torture.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo the legal issues and for substantial evidence the factual determinations and denied Antezan’s petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 24 original Orion investors constitute a "particular social group" | The shared immutable experience as original investors and victims of the scheme makes them a distinct, societally recognized group | The group lacks an immutable trait, particularity, and societal recognition; evidence shows only aggrieved investors perceived them as a group | Held: Not a particular social group—no evidence of social distinction or adequate particularity |
| Whether Antezan suffered past persecution or has a well‑founded fear of future persecution on account of group membership | Threats and attacks on him and family show past persecution and future fear tied to investor status | Harassment and threats were retaliatory/personal over a failed business, not on account of a protected ground | Held: Even assuming past persecution or well‑founded fear, harm was personal/retaliatory and lacked nexus to protected ground |
| Whether mixed‑motive analysis shows membership was at least one central reason for persecution | Membership in the investor group was one central reason for the threats and attacks | Persecutors were motivated by personal revenge and loss; Antezan offered no evidence of other central reasons | Held: No mixed‑motive showing; Antezan failed to prove membership was a central reason |
| Whether Antezan established entitlement to CAT relief (more likely than not to be tortured) | Threats from individuals tied to military/government plus country‑condition reports show likely torture | Threats were speculative; no past torture; no evidence of gross/mass state torture; country conditions do not demonstrate likely torture | Held: Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief—risk of torture was speculative and insufficiently supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir.) (standards for reviewing BIA decisions)
- Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir.) (asylum eligibility requires past persecution or well‑founded fear tied to protected ground)
- Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir.) (withholding of removal standard: more likely than not)
- Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir.) (substantial‑evidence standard and viewing record in favor of agency)
- Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399 (11th Cir.) (deference to BIA interpretation of "particular social group")