Background
Merli Carolina Valdez-Merida, a native and citizen of Guatemala, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of her appeal. She had applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture based on fear of harm from her late husband’s family. She proposed a particular social group of women in Guatemala who are defenseless.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that the petitioner failed to establish the nexus required for asylum and withholding of removal claims. The court noted she did not meaningfully challenge the Board’s determination and her arguments in the reply brief were conclusory. Regarding the Convention Against Torture claim, the court found substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that the petitioner did not establish state action. The petitioner failed to show that the Guatemalan government consented to or acquiesced in the alleged torture, as generalized evidence of violence is insufficient.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that petitioners must specifically and substantively argue nexus issues to avoid forfeiture and must provide specific evidence of government acquiescence rather than general conditions of violence to succeed on Convention Against Torture claims.