Background
Petitioners Cesar Augusto Almario, his wife Maria Yanet Perdomo Lomelin, and their two minor children, all Colombian citizens, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order. The order upheld an Immigration Judge’s decision denying Almario’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The petitioners alleged that the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia threatened to kill them and forcibly recruit their son.
The court’s reasoning
The panel reviewed the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. The court held that the Immigration Judge reasonably determined the proposed social group of fathers of children between ages twelve and seventeen was not socially distinct within Colombian society. The court further found that the petitioner’s resistance to criminal recruitment was a refusal to comply with a criminal demand rather than evidence of imputed political opinion. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of Convention Against Torture relief, noting substantial evidence that the Colombian government would not acquiesce in future torture.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit’s precedent that general parental groups do not qualify as particular social groups and that resistance to criminal gangs does not automatically establish a political opinion claim.