Yobani Lopez-Guzman v. Jefferson Sessions, 15-73864

Petitioner Yobani Lopez-Guzman, a Honduran national, seeks withholding of removal and CAT relief after prior removals to Honduras.
He has Catholic-themed tattoos which he asserts will be perceived as gang tattoos and expose him to harm from gangs, police, and employers, and he fears reprisal for refusing gang recruitment.
After prior removals he lived in Honduras for over three years; police detained him briefly a few times for suspected gang affiliation but did not harm or threaten him; he was once not hired due to perceived gang affiliation.
Family members were targeted by gangs for refusing to pay extortion; petitioner acknowledges those attacks were extortion-motivated, not on account of a protected ground.
The IJ and BIA denied withholding and CAT relief; petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reviews legal questions de novo and factual denials for substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Withholding of removal: nexus to protected ground	Tattoos (Catholic imagery) mark him and his faith/identity will be a reason gangs or others harm him	Harm would be criminal/gang-motivated, not on account of religion or a protected social group	Denied — petitioner failed to show nexus to a protected ground; tattoos perceived as gang-related fall outside protected social group precedents
Past persecution	Detentions, employment denial, and family-targeting incidents amount to past persecution	Detentions were brief investigatory stops; employment denial and family extortion do not rise to persecution on protected-ground grounds	Denied — evidence does not establish past persecution; incidents insufficient or motivated by extortion/criminality
Future persecution / internal relocation	Would likely be harmed if returned; tattoos mark him nationwide	Petitioner’s hometown has low gang violence and relocation within Honduras is possible	Denied — petitioner failed to show likelihood of future persecution and could avoid threat by relocating
CAT relief (torture by or with government acquiescence)	Gangs would torture him and government would acquiesce	No evidence government agents would torture or would acquiesce to gang torture	Denied — no evidence government would torture or acquiesce; petitioner failed to meet CAT standard

Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) ("a reason" nexus standard for withholding; analysis of nexus to protected ground)
Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2009) (resistance to gang membership is not a protected ground)
Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2007) (tattooed gang member not a cognizable social group; brief police detentions not persecution)
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (criminal/extortion-motivated attacks lack nexus to protected ground)
Nagoulko v. I.N.S., 333 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (employment discrimination alone does not constitute persecution)
Villegas v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (government acquiescence required for CAT claims)
Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of legal questions)
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (substantial-evidence review for withholding and CAT denials)