Garcia v. Holder

Decision Date19 March 2014
Docket NumberNo. 13–1949.,13–1949.
Citation746 F.3d 869
PartiesFelix Somoza GARCIA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of United States, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Steven K. Wichmer, argued, Timothy E. Wichmer, on the brief, Saint Louis, MO, for Petitioner.

Allison Frayer, argued, Dept. of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GRUENDER, BRIGHT, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

Felix Somoza Garcia (Somoza), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his request for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the following reasons, we deny the petition.

I. Background

Somoza illegally entered the United States through Arizona in June 2002. On November 15, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) charged him with removal as an alien present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. See8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Somoza admitted to the DHS's factual allegations and conceded removability. In lieu of removal, Somoza requested asylum under § 1158(a), withholding of removal under § 1231(b)(3)(A), and relief under the CAT.1

Before the immigration judge (“IJ”), Somoza testified that he left Guatemala due to violence perpetrated against him by MS–13, also known as the Mara Salvatrucha gang. In June or July 2001, a five-man MS–13 posse, led by a man named Arturo, began violently extorting money from Somoza. He claimed to have suffered three violent attacks. After the first attack, Arturo required Somoza either to pay half of his salary to MS–13 or to join the gang. Somoza soon realized he could not survive on half of his earnings, so he told Arturo he was unable to pay. Somoza was attacked again, at which time he reported the violent situation to local police authorities. Somoza identified Arturo in a face-to-face encounter at the police station. The police arrested Arturo but released him a week later. Somoza heard that the police had accepted a bribe from MS–13. Upon learning of Arturo's release, Somoza fled Guatemala and spent approximately two months in El Salvador. However, fearing for the safety of his mother, he returned to Guatemala and was attacked a third time by MS–13 members. Somoza left Guatemala for the United States following this last attack.

Somoza argued he was entitled to withholding of removal because the violence against him was motivated by his “membership in a particular social group” and his “political opinion.” See id. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Specifically, Somoza contended that he belonged to a social group consisting of “young Guatemalan men who have opposed the MS–13, have been beaten and extorted by that gang, reported those gangs to the police[,] and faced increased persecution as a result.” He also claimed to hold a political opinion to “uphold[ ] the laws” by reporting gang violence to the police.

The IJ denied withholding of removal, concluding that Somoza's proffered social group and political opinion were not cognizable under § 1231(b)(3)(A). The IJ also denied him relief under the CAT, finding that the Guatemalan government was unlikely to instigate or acquiesce in his torture. Somoza appealed to the BIA, which dismissed Somoza's appeal and incorporated the IJ's reasoning and findings in its decision. Somoza now petitions this court for review of the BIA's order.

II. Discussion

We generally review the BIA's decision as the final agency action, but where ‘the BIA essentially adopted the IJ's opinion while adding some of its own reasoning, we review both decisions.’ Osonowo v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 922, 926–27 (8th Cir.2008) (quoting Eta–Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 982 (8th Cir.2005)). We review questions of immigration law de novo. Supangat v. Holder, 735 F.3d 792, 795 (8th Cir.2013). We review an IJ's factual determinations under the substantial-evidence test, which requires that those determinations be supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.” Id. We will not reverse factual findings unless ‘the petitioner demonstrates that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find in favor of the petitioner.’ Id. (quoting Turay v. Ashcroft, 405 F.3d 663, 667 (8th Cir.2005)).

To qualify for withholding of removal under § 1231, Somoza must demonstrate a clear probability that his “life or freedom would be threatened” on account of one of five enumerated grounds, including “membership in a particular social group” and “political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Supangat, 735 F.3d at 795. Somoza argues that he was persecuted on account of (1) his membership in a particular social group defined by its opposition to and persecution by MS–13 and (2) his political opinion to “uphold[ ] the laws” by reporting gang violence to the police. Neither of these proffered statuses is legally sufficient to qualify for withholding of removal. We consider them each in turn.

“Membership in a particular social group ‘refer [s] to persons who hold an immutable characteristic, or common trait such as sex, color, kinship, or ... shared past experiences.’ Constanza v. Holder, 647 F.3d 749, 754 (8th Cir.2011) (alterations in original) (quoting Davila–Mejia v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 624, 628 (8th Cir.2008)). [A] social group requires sufficient particularity and visibility such that the group is perceived as a cohesive group by society.” Id. In Constanza, we held that ‘persons resistant to gang violence’ are too diffuse to be recognized as a particular social group.” Id. Somoza asserts his situation is distinguishable from mere resisters of gang violence because he identified Arturo face-to-face at the police station and suffered additional persecution as a result. In determining particularity, [t]he ‘central’ question is whether the applicant'sstatus as a member of a particular social group is the reason for that individual's persecution.” Gathungu v. Holder, 725 F.3d 900, 908 (8th Cir.2013). While identifying Arturo for the police may have contributed to MS–13's disdain for Somoza, MS–13 was already targeting Somoza for his refusal to relinquish half of his salary or to join its ranks. In addition, the visibility requirement tests ‘whether the members of the group are perceived as a group by society,’ such that ‘these individuals suffer from a higher incidence of crime than the rest of the population.’ Gaitan v. Holder, 671 F.3d 678, 680 (8th Cir.2012) (quoting Matter of S–E–G, 24 I. & N. Dec. 579, 586–87 (BIA 2008)). Somoza has not presented any evidence indicating that persons who identify gang members to police suffer greater crime than other members of the population who resist gang violence. Therefore, his attempt to define a cognizable social group on this basis fails for lack of both particularity and visibility.

Somoza's proffered political status also fails under prior precedent of this court. See Marroquin–Ochoma v. Holder, 574 F.3d 574, 578–79 (8th Cir.2009) (holding that opposition to a gang “does not compel a finding that the gang's threats were on account of an imputed political opinion”). Moreover, nothing in the record suggests that MS–13 targeted Somoza for political reasons. Rather, the gang attacked him for resisting its extortionate demands. Accordingly, the BIA's legal determinations were correct, and substantial evidence supports its decision to deny withholding of removal under § 1231(b)(3)(A).

Unlike § 1231, the CAT does not require Somoza to show he belongs to a protected group. Id. at 579. “Rather, to qualify for CAT relief, [Somoza] must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that [he] will be tortured if removed to Guatemala.” Id. (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)). The torture must be “by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). Because Somoza does not contend that his predicted torture would be by or at the instigation of or with the consent of Guatemalan officials, he must show that public officials will acquiesce in his torture. Demonstrating “acquiescence of a public official” requires proof “that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Sharif v. Barr
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • July 7, 2020
    ...where "the BIA essentially adopted the IJ's opinion while adding some of its own reasoning, we review both decisions." Garcia v. Holder , 746 F.3d 869, 872 (8th Cir. 2014). If, however, the petitioner is a criminal alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), our jurisdiction to review final order......
  • Alvarez-Gomez v. Garland
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • December 28, 2022
    ...in which the only evidence of acquiescence was a government's general difficulties in controlling gang activity. Cf. Garcia v. Holder, 746 F.3d 869, 874 (8th Cir. 2014) (finding that, "without more," the inability of government to curtail MS-13 violence does not entitle petitioner to CAT re......
  • Alvarez-Gomez v. Garland
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • December 28, 2022
    ...in which the only evidence of acquiescence was a government's general difficulties in controlling gang activity. Cf. Garcia v. Holder, 746 F.3d 869, 874 (8th Cir. 2014) (finding that, "without more," the inability of government to curtail MS-13 violence does not entitle petitioner to CAT re......
  • Saldana v. Lynch
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 28, 2016
    ...requires prior awareness of the torture and breach of a legal responsibility to intervene. 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(7) ; Garcia v. Holder, 746 F.3d 869, 873–74 (8th Cir.2014). Evidence concerning the Mexican government's efforts to combat criminal organizations in Veracruz and elsewhere was suf......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Convention Against Torture and Non-refoulement in U.s. Courts
    • United States
    • Georgetown Immigration Law Journal No. 35-3, April 2021
    • April 1, 2021
    ...241 (4th Cir. 2004) (f‌inding that the Guatemalan govern-ment did not acquiesce to torture by the gang Mara 18); Samoza Garcia v. Holder, 746 F.3d 869 (8th Cir. 2014) (f‌inding that the government of Guatemala did not acquiesce to gang violence because it had attempted to control the gangs)......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT