Christina De Los Angeles Lopez-Villeda, a native of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection in June 2021 with her two daughters. Following her entry, she faced threats from members of the Mara 13 gang in her neighborhood who demanded weekly payments for her small clothing business. When she could not pay, the gang members threatened to kill her and her daughters. Lopez-Villeda applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming persecution based on her status as a Honduran woman, a single mother, and a small business owner. An Immigration Judge found her testimony credible regarding the threats but denied relief, ruling that the threats were motivated by economic gain rather than her membership in a particular social group. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this decision, and the petitioners sought review in the Third Circuit.
The Third Circuit reviewed the agency's factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, which requires that findings be conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. For asylum and withholding of removal, the court emphasized that the persecution must be on account of a protected ground, meaning that ground must be at least one central reason for the targeting. The court noted that while the petitioners were entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution due to past threats, they still had to prove the nexus between that fear and a protected ground. The court found that the record did not compel a conclusion that the gang's threats were motivated by the petitioners' status as single mothers or women. Instead, the evidence showed the gang extorted small business owners regardless of the owner's gender or family status. The court cited the principle that a protected ground must play more than an incidental role in the persecution. Regarding the Convention Against Torture claim, the court explained that torture is defined as an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment involving severe pain or suffering. The court found that the unfulfilled threats of extortion did not rise to the level of torture, especially since the petitioners' family members remained in the same area without harm. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioners failed to establish that the Honduran government would acquiesce to such torture, as there was no evidence connecting the government to the gang's actions.
The petition for review is denied, meaning the Board of Immigration Appeals' order denying relief stands. The petitioners remain subject to removal from the United States. The decision reinforces the strict requirement that asylum seekers must prove a specific nexus between the harm they fear and a protected ground, distinguishing between criminal extortion and persecution based on identity. It also clarifies that unfulfilled threats of extortion do not constitute torture under the Convention Against Torture.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download