Zoila Sorto-Guzman v. Merrick Garland, 42 F.4th 443

Petitioners Zoila Sorto‑Guzman (mother) and her son fled El Salvador after repeated attacks and death threats by Mara 18 tied to Sorto‑Guzman’s Catholic faith.
December 2015: assaulted outside church; gang tore off her crucifix and threatened to kill her if she attended church or wore it again; she stopped attending.
January–February 2016: same gang members later attempted sexual assault, threatened her and her son, and broke into her home, beat and robbed her; police response was ineffective.
Sorto‑Guzman applied for asylum (and withholding/CAT) in 2017; an IJ found her credible and that the December 2015 threat had nexus to religion but concluded it was an isolated threat that “never came to fruition” and not past persecution; BIA adopted and affirmed.
Fourth Circuit reversed: held that a credible threat of death alone qualifies as past persecution, entitling Sorto‑Guzman to a rebuttable presumption of a well‑founded fear of future persecution; remanded to BIA to determine whether DHS can rebut.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a credible death threat tied to religion constitutes past persecution	Sorto‑Guzman: the December 2015 death threat (with physical assault) is past persecution and establishes a presumption of well‑founded fear	Government/IJ: the threat was isolated, never executed, and thus did not rise to persecution	Court: A credible threat of death alone constitutes past persecution; IJ/BIA erred; remand for DHS rebuttal
Whether subsequent January/February incidents have religious nexus	Sorto‑Guzman: subsequent attacks by same actors support seriousness of initial religiously‑motivated threat	Government/IJ/BIA: those later incidents lacked nexus to religion and cannot be credited as such	Court: Did not decide nexus for later incidents; noted later incidents nonetheless corroborate seriousness of initial threat
Whether withholding of removal should be granted	Sorto‑Guzman: withholding follows if asylum standard met or on remand if DHS cannot rebut	Government/IJ: applicant failed to meet asylum standard, so withholding fails	Court: Did not decide on withholding; remand required because asylum past‑persecution finding may affect withholding analysis
Claim under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)	Sorto‑Guzman: feared torture if returned	Government/IJ: no showing that Salvadoran authorities would acquiesce to torture	Held: Petitioner did not carry burden on CAT; court declines to remand that claim

Crespin‑Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (holds that the threat of death qualifies as persecution)
Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2005) (defines persecution to include threat of death)
Tairou v. Whitaker, 909 F.3d 702 (4th Cir. 2018) (reverses BIA for discounting credible death threats; threat alone suffices for past persecution)
Hernandez‑Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (4th Cir. 2015) (applies standard that credible death threats constitute persecution)
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 2004) (explains burden shifting: past persecution triggers rebuttable presumption of well‑founded fear)
Cordova v. Holder, 759 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2014) (BIA abuses discretion when it ignores controlling precedent)