Ruiz-Cabrera v. Holder

Decision Date08 April 2014
Docket NumberNo. 13–2939.,13–2939.
Citation748 F.3d 754
PartiesBenjamin Carlos RUIZ–CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Daniel W. Thomann, Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.

Timothy G. Hayes, Attorney, Rebekah Nahas, Attorney, OIL, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before EASTERBROOK, MANION, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Benjamin Ruiz–Cabrera is a Mexican citizen who fears harm from his physically abusive and politically active wife back in Mexico. He challenges the denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He maintains that his wife and her political allies will target him for persecution based on his proposed particular social group: “persons who face persecution by corrupt governmental and law enforcement authorities instigated by a politically connected spouse.” He also asserts he will be persecuted for imputed political opinions in opposition to or in support of his wife's political party.

We deny Ruiz–Cabrera's petition. The Board of Immigration Appeals did not err by finding that he failed to identify a valid “particular social group” within the meaning of the statutes authorizing asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (defining “refugee”), § 1158(b)(1)(A) (authorizing asylum); § 1231(b)(3)(A) (requiring withholding of removal if alien's “life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”). In addition, substantial evidence supports the Board's determinations that Ruiz–Cabrera did not show imputed political opinion or a likelihood of torture.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Ruiz–Cabrera entered the United States without inspection (i.e., unlawfully) in 2001. He came to the attention of immigration authorities in 2009 after an arrest. He conceded removability, but he applied for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 saying that he feared returning to Mexico because of threats and mistreatment by his wife, who holds a local office as a member of Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD). Ruiz–Cabrera stated in his application that he feared his wife would “use her political influence to have people close to her cause me harm, including torture at the hands of Mexican law enforcement.” He sought relief based on imputed political opinion (opposition to the PRD) and membership in a particular social group, which he defined as “individuals who face persecution by corrupt governmental and law enforcement authorities instigated by a politically connected spouse.” He also applied for protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c).

At his hearing before an immigration judge, Ruiz–Cabrera recounted experiences that led him to fear his wife. The two had begun dating in 1989, had three sons over the next seven years, and married in 2000. Ruiz–Cabrera testified that throughout the 1990s, his wife would often become violent (throwing stones and other objects at him) and twice urged men to fight him, publicly asserting that he had abused her. Though he was able to defuse those confrontations, Ruiz–Cabrera singled out a particularly frightening incident in 1996 or 1997 when someone fired two shots at him. He believes the shots were fired by the brother of a neighbor with whom his wife accused him of having an affair. Ruiz–Cabrera said that he agreed to marry his wife in 2000 “to keep [his] children secure.” He entered the United States illegally a year later, though, leaving behind his sons—then ages 10, 9, and 5. He had not told his wife or children of his plans. When he called her from the United States, she threatened to have him extradited back to Mexico.

To substantiate his fears that his wife would use her political connections to harm him, Ruiz–Cabrera testified about two encounters in 2002 with Mexican police. First, during an eight-month return to Mexico, police detained him based on his wife's false accusation that he had groped her. The police had him stand naked for five minutes while they visually examined him. He was released later that day only after his wife dropped the charges. A few weeks later, his car was pulled over by a police officer who he believed was trailing him at his wife's behest. The officer attempted to plant cocaine in his pocket but let him go only after he paid a small bribe.

The immigration judge found Ruiz–Cabrera's testimony (and corroborating telephonic testimony from his mother and brother in Mexico City) to be credible but still denied his applications for relief. The judge concluded first that Ruiz–Cabrera had not proposed a valid social group because he did not identify a shared characteristic aside from persecution. The judge also found that Ruiz–Cabrera had not shown that he would be harmed based on his membership in that group. Rather, said the judge, his wife targeted him in “a personal vendetta.”

The judge then explained that Ruiz–Cabrera had not offered any evidence to show that an alleged persecutor would imputeany political opinion to him. Finally the judge concluded that Ruiz–Cabrera could not show a likelihood of torture because he had not been injured and he had failed to show that his wife had ever followed through on her threats. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted and affirmed the immigration judge's order with its own written opinion. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review the decision.

II. AnalysisA. Particular Social Group

Where the Board has adopted the decision of the immigration judge and added its own reasoning, we review both decisions. Pouhova v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1007, 1011 (7th Cir.2013); Mema v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 412, 416 (7th Cir.2007). We must affirm the decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole, and we may overturn it only if the record compels a contrary result, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Abraham v. Holder, 647 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir.2011), or there has been a legal error, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Sirbu v. Holder, 718 F.3d 655, 658–60 (7th Cir.2013); Asani v. INS, 154 F.3d 719, 722–23 (7th Cir.1998).

The meaning of the flexible statutory term “particular social group” is not self-evident from the statutory text. The Board of Immigration Appeals has limited the concept to groups whose membership is defined by a characteristic that is either immutable or is so fundamental to individual identity or conscience that a person ought not be required to change. Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 233–34 (1985), overruled in part on other grounds, Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I. & N. Dec. 439, 441 (BIA 1987). Under the principles of Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), we defer to the Board's interpretation of the statute. See Escobar v. Holder, 657 F.3d 537, 542 (7th Cir.2011); Lwin v. INS, 144 F.3d 505, 511–12 (7th Cir.1998).

Ruiz–Cabrera contends that his proposed group is cognizable because its members—people who...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Khan v. Holder, s. 13–2106
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • September 4, 2014
    ...the Board has adopted the decision of the immigration judge and added its own reasoning, we review both decisions.” Ruiz–Cabrera v. Holder, 748 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir.2014). Our review of factual findings is governed by the deferential substantial-evidence standard, under which the BIA's de......
  • Garcia-Arce v. Barr
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • December 30, 2019
    ...Board has adopted the decision of the immigration judge and added its own reasoning, we review both decisions." Ruiz-Cabrera v. Holder , 748 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2014). We must not disturb the Board’s holding if it is "supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the r......
  • Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Kaplan Higher Educ. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • April 9, 2014

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