Sandoval v. Garland
| Decision Date | 14 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 20-4022 |
| Parties | SILVIA MARITZA SANDOVAL, et al., Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Petitioner Silvia Sandoval entered the United States with her three children after a jealous woman threatened her life. Sandoval and her children applied for asylum and withholding of removal, but an Immigration Judge denied their application. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Because threats born of romantic jealousy do not establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal, we deny the petition for review.
Silvia Sandoval is a citizen of El Salvador. She lived in El Salvador with her children and her husband, Silas. One of their neighbors, Maria, fell in love with Silas and grew jealous of his marriage. Maria wanted Silas to end his relationship with his wife, but he refused.
Maria was determined to have Silas to herself, so she started sending Silvia threatening messages. At the start, she communicated through intermediaries: She first asked a gang member to make the threats, and then she told Silvia's cousin and aunt that she would make Silvia disappear. Before long, Maria started approaching Silvia herself. She hopped over Silvia's fence and yelled that Silvia would die if she didn't let Silas go. Then she did the same thing again, but armed with a knife. Silvia filed a police report and fled to the United States with her children. Silas soon followed.
Silvia and the children applied for asylum and withholding of removal. They argued that they were persecuted because of their membership in Silas's family. Although the Immigration Judge found Silvia's testimony credible, she found that Maria was not motivated by animus against the family and denied the applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Silvia and her three children now petition for review.
To be eligible for asylum or withholding of removal, Silvia and her children must show at least a "well-founded fear" that they would be persecuted in El Salvador because of their "race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1101(a)(42)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A); Skripkov v. Barr, 966 F.3d 480, 492 (6th Cir. 2020). The petitioners argue that they have been persecuted because of their membership in a particular social group-that is, as members of Silas's family. The BIA assumed that kinship with Silas could constitute a protected social group (and, for purposes of review, so do we). But it found that Silvia and her children were not persecuted because of their membership in that group.
We review this finding for substantial evidence. Zaldana Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491, 497 (6th Cir. 2015). That means we must accept it as "conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." Id. at 498 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
Here, the record supports the determination that Silvia "was a victim of [a] crime motivated by personal animus," not by animus against members of Silas's family. A.R. at 4. As the petitioners explain, "Maria was almost certainly jealous of Silvia and the evidence definitely points to her wanting Silvia out of the way so she could freely pursue her relationship with Silas." Pet'r Br. 12. But romantic jealousy is not a statutorily protected ground for asylum or withholding of removal. And as the Immigration Judge noted, "there appear to be no threats or any harm . . . done to any of the children whatsoever." A.R. at 62. The targeted nature of the threats is further evidence that Maria was not motivated by a desire to harm members of Silas's family. Reasonable adjudicators would not be compelled to conclude otherwise.
Thus, substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that Silvia and her children were not persecuted because of a statutorily protected ground. For that reason, they are not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Their petition is denied.
The IJ BIA, and the majority get the facts all right but draw all the wrong conclusions. Because the record evidence compels a finding that Silvia Maritza Sandoval showed a nexus between the persecution she experienced and her membership in her husband's nuclear family, I respectfully dissent.
The IJ aptly summarized the relevant facts of this case. Maria, a neighbor of Sandoval, "wanted to get [Sandoval] out of the way . . . so that [Maria] could take over the relationship and have [Sandoval] and her children gone from the picture." IJ Decision at 14 (Administrative Record ("A.R.") at 65). Initially, Maria had no problems with Sandoval. Id. at 6 (A.R. at 57). Only after Sandoval married her husband, Silas, and they had two children did Maria begin making death threats against Sandoval, especially after it became clear that Silas was not going to leave Sandoval. Id. at 5-6 (A.R. at 56-57); Hr'g Tr. at 25-26 (A.R. at 111-12). Maria essentially wanted to dismantle the Sandoval family, so that Maria alone could be with Silas. Maria began persecuting Sandoval in an effort to accomplish this goal. Maria verbally and physically threatened Sandoval. IJ Decision at 4-5 (A.R. at 55-56). She also sent death threats through Sandoval's family members and enlisted a local gang member to threaten Sandoval. Id.
Where the majority and I part ways is on what these facts actually mean. The IJ, BIA, and majority consider Maria's persecution of Sandoval to be motivated solely by personal animus against Sandoval. I believe, however, that these facts clearly compel us to conclude that personal animus alone did not motivate Maria to target Sandoval. Maria also persecuted Sandoval because of her membership in Silas's family.
Asylum seekers must demonstrate that they were "persecuted on account of or because of" their membership in a protected category, such as a particular social group. Marku v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 982, 986 (6th Cir. 2004). Although a persecutor may have multiple, or "mixed," motives, id. at 988 n.10, with respect to asylum claims, "the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant," 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (emphasis added).[1]Applicants cannot rely "solely" on "personal matters" to show that they were persecuted because of their membership in a protected category. Zoarab v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 777, 781 (6th Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). If, however, "there is a nexus between the persecution and the membership in a particular social group, the simultaneous existence of a personal dispute does not eliminate that nexus." Bi Xia Qu v. Holder, 618 F.3d 602, 608 (6th Cir. 2010).
Although Maria had a personal dispute with Sandoval, that dispute was inextricably intertwined with Sandoval's membership in Silas's nuclear family.[2] But for Sandoval's unique relationship with Silas, her status as his wife and the mother of his children, Maria would not have targeted her. The IJ explicitly determined that Maria's goal was more than simply being in a romantic relationship with Silas; she wanted to remove Sandoval and her children from their family home, so that Maria alone could be with Silas. IJ Decision at 14 (A.R. at 65). The record clearly demonstrates that Maria did not just hate Sandoval or simply desire Silas. Her goal was to break up the nuclear Sandoval family as it currently existed. If Sandoval renounced her husband, took her children, and left their family home, then she would be safe. See Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980, 997 (6th Cir. 2009) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial